AC v Partnerships in Care Ltd  UKUT 450 (AAC) (Judge Jacobs): The Appellant appealed against a FTT's rejection of his application for a notification under section 74 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“MHA”) that, if he was subject to a section 37/41 MHA hospital order and restriction rather than a section 47/49 transfer direction from prison that he would be entitled to a conditional discharge. On allowing the appeal and remitting the case back the UT held that (1) the FTT tribunal failed to give reasons as to why it rejected Dr Kahtan's independent evidence supporting discharge and (2) The tribunal was right not to consider the conditions which might be imposed by the Parole Board (and any consequent diminution of risk on release) and only to consider conditions possible with a conditional discharge given that its jurisdiction is limited to the MHA. It is correct that the FTT should take into account the practical reality such as where release into the community is impossible and prison is the only alternative (Abu-Rideh), but this reasoning does not apply to a case such as this Appellant's because it was unknown whether the Parole Board would release the Appellant or what conditions of licence. (click here for transcript).
AC was represented by Roger Pezzani
Re Ian Brady  (HHJ Atherton): FTT: The hearing in public of the application Mr Ian Brady has been re-listed for Monday 17/6/13. The arrangements for the hearing will be the same as those made for the hearing which had to be adjourned last July namely that the Tribunal will hear the case at Ashworth Hospital and it will be relayed to the Civil Justice Centre Manchester for members of the public and press to watch the proceedings. (Click here for transcript).
SH v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust  UKUT 290 (AAC) (Judge Jacobs): The appellant was subject to a Community Treatment Order. He said when he received his depot injection he did not consent to it but that he submitted to receive it without resistance. The appellant claimed his lack of consent meant that the 'appropriate medical treatment is available for him' test was not met. The FTT did not discharge him. On appeal the UT held that the issue of consent is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal as the tribunal can only consider the statutory criteria (consent to treatment does not arise) it is for the court to provide judicial oversight of medical treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983. (click here for transcript).
AM v West London MH NHS Trust  UKUT 382 (AAC) (Judge Jacobs): The question posed is when is the FTT under a duty to adjourn to obtain information on possible aftercare available to a patient. On dismissing the appeal the UT held that although the social work evidence before the FTT may have been incomplete, even inadequate, it did not affect the FTT’s ability to give the appellant a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly. On the FTT’s findings, the appellant had progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise. Without some acceptance or insight the appellant could not progress to the community or even leave. (click here for transcript).
The Appellant was represented by Roger Pezzani.
Avon and Wiltshire MH Partnership NHS Trust and Wiltshire Council 09 005 439 (LGO): Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for patients who have been compulsorily detained under the Act to receive free aftercare. A complaint stated it was wrong for Mrs M to have funded her own care during the five years she spent as a resident of the care home. The Ombudsmen did not uphold any complaints. Although the Ombudsman held that there was no doubt Mrs M had had a severe and enduring mental illness over many years, the Ombudsman could not conclude that her period of residence in a care home, in the last years of her life, was linked to aftercare arising from compulsory detention in hospital some 15 years earlier. Mrs M’s general deterioration could not be definitely attributed to her mental health problems thus the Ombudsman could not conclude the care home’s fees should be met by the NHS. (click here for report).
Polandv Mariusz Wolkowicz (aka Del Ponti); Poland v Wojciech Biskup: Lithuania v Vilma Rizleiene  EWHC 102 (Admin) (Sir John Thomas (President), Burnett J): The appellant requested persons appealed against orders for their extradition to the requesting states on the grounds that they might commit suicide by reason of their mental conditions. On dismissing the appeal the court held that where a requested person claimed his extradition ought to be discharged or adjourned under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 because of the risk they might commit suicide by reason of their mental condition, the court looked at the measures to prevent such an attempt in relation to while he was in the United Kingdom, while he was being transferred to the requesting state and when he was received by the requesting state. (click here for transcript).
Guy Savage v United States  EWHC 3317 (Admin) DC (Rafferty LJ, Kenneth Parker J): The appellant appealed against a decision of a district judge sending his case to the secretary of state for her decision whether to order his extradition to the respondent requesting state for firearms matters, the United State of America. A report from a consultant psychiatrist presented at the extradition hearing concluded that the appellant was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and from a severe depressive episode and that he was at high risk of suicide if extradited, particularly if he lost regular contact with his daughters. The district judge found that evidence unconvincing and rejected it. On appeal the appellant sought to rely on a further medical report from a second consultant who reported that since his arrest he had developed a number of depressive symptoms and that in the event of extradition, a separation from his children could lead to a risk of suicide. On dismissing the appeal the court held that fresh expert evidence that the appellant was a high suicide risk was not sufficiently decisive to show that his extradition to the United States would be unjust or oppressive under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. (click here for transcript).