Need some help? Call us now

+44 (0)1784 423 321

0 Items(s) | £0.00
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mental Health Act Manual 20e (20th edition)

Our Price: £83.00 
Author(s): Jones, R.;
Classification(s): Mental health law;
Readership / Audience Level: Professional & Vocational
ISBN-13: 9780414064874
ISBN-10: 0414064879
Publication Date: 30 Nov 2017
Imprint: Sweet & Maxwell
Availability: In Print
Free Stock: In Stock
Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell
Publication Country: United Kingdom
Binding / Product Type: Paperback
Average ratings assigned : 0. Rate this product / View all ratings and comments (0) Ratings / Reviews

  • Secretary of State for Justice v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ where the Court of Appeal held that that (1) the Act does not provide a power in the tribunal to impose conditions on a conditional discharge that extend to the imposition of a deprivation of liberty of a patient's liberty; and (2) a responsible clinician has the power to attach a condition to a community treatment order which constitutes a deprivation of the patient's liberty.
  • Djaba v West London Mental Health Trust where the Court of Appeal held that a tribunal has no power to conduct a proportionality assessment pursuant to arts.5 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights taking into account the conditions of the patient's detention.
  • Tinsley v Manchester City Council where it was held that a local authority may not have regard to the patient's ability to fund the cost of after-care services from damages awarded to him in his claim for personal injuries when determining whether or not to provide after-care services under s.117.
  • PI v West London Mental Health NHS Trust where the Upper Tribunal considered how a tribunal should react when, during the course of a tribunal hearing, it appeared that the patient no longer had capacity to appoint or instruct his solicitor.
  • R (on the application of Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London where the Court of Appeal held that a patient in a general hospital was not deprived of her liberty because she was being treated for a physical illness and her treatment was that which would have been administered to a person who did not have her mental impairment.
  • R. (on the application of OK) v First-tier Tribunal on the need for the Secretary of State to make a reference to the tribunal under s.67(1) where a tribunal, which is considering an application made by a solicitor on behalf of the patient, finds that the patient lacked the mental capacity to authorise another person to act on his behalf.
  • LB v BMH where the Upper Tribunal held that the evidence placed before a tribunal should not be confined to justifying the patient's detention. It should also deal with the suitability of the regime that the patient is subject to as such information would be required if the patient's solicitor was minded to attempt to persuade the tribunal to recommend a transfer under s.72(3).

--

Reviews

--

Author Biography

--

Promotional Information

--