header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008 / Dr Srikanth Nimmagadda , Dr Chris Jones
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Misrepresentation

Public bodies are too often represented by unqualified people say Dr Chris Jones and Dr Srikanth Nimmagadda

Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) proceedings are proceedings of the High Court that determine the liberty of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983). There are usually two parties to the proceedings: the patient and the “responsible authority”—the managers of the NHS trust or private hospital in which the patient is detained. Patients are usually represented by a lawyer specialising in mental health law. In contrast, legal representation for the hospital is rare. Generally the responsible medical officer (RMO)—the consultant in charge of the patient’s treatment—represents the hospital. This is no longer automatically the case (see R (on application of Care NHS Trust) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 1182 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 120 (May)), but it remains common. Consultant psychiatrists receive no specific training in the responsibilities arising from this role, although many gain considerable practical experience of the proceedings. Similarly, psychiatrists have no training in the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll