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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll