header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007 / David Hewitt
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Treatment shock

Rumours of the death of the “treatability test” have been greatly exaggerated, says David Hewitt

Thanks to a last-minute amendment, the Mental Health Act 2007 (MeHA 2007) will be less radical than many people had feared—at least in the way it deals with medical treatment.

In July 2007, MeHA 2007 received Royal Assent. It will amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983), probably with effect from late 2008. As expected, it removes the previous “treatability test”, but, perhaps surprisingly, it does not do so entirely.

THE TREATABILITY TEST

At the moment, MeHA 1983 may be used to detain and give compulsory medical treatment to someone suffering from “mental disorder”. MeHA 1983 recognises four categories of mental disorder: mental illness, mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder (ss 1 and 3); and its definition of “medical treatment” includes “nursing…care, habilitation and rehabilitation under medical supervision” (s 145(1)).
If someone is to be detained for anything other than the short-term, the medical treatment he is to receive in hospital must be “likely to alleviate or

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll