QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF X||(CLAIMANT)|
|MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR M CHAMBERLAIN appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"A persistent disorder or disability of mind whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned".
"In answer to the question whether the relevant discharge applicable under section 72 of the Act has been met, the simple answer to this is that it is my considered psychiatric opinion that the terms of the Mental Health Act no longer apply to this individual, since as emphasised the serious and highly risk-laden mental disorder he did suffer from in 1988 has now remitted and he no longer suffers from any mental disorder within the meaning of the Act".
"There was insufficient time at the conclusion of the submissions of learned counsel at 7.15 pm for the Tribunal members to conclude their deliberations. The members therefore dispersed and in their subsequent deliberations considered that it was unacceptable that any decision should be made in this case, or even further considered, without the Tribunal having seen the RMO and received a written report from him, having regard to the public interest in the Tribunal being seen to arrive at the right decision in this particular case".
"(1) Before or during any hearing, the Tribunal may call for such further information or reports as it may think desirable and may give directions as to the manner in which, and the persons by whom, such material is to be furnished".
"(1) The Tribunal may at any time adjourn a hearing for the purpose of obtaining further information or for such other purposes as it may think appropriate.
(2) Before adjourning any hearing, the Tribunal may give such directions as it thinks fit for ensuring the prompt consideration of this application at an adjourned hearing".
"A delay does not of itself give rise to a breach of Article 5(4) [of the Convention] but it does give rise to the need for an explanation".
"The Court does not attempt to decide in principle whether a particular period of delay is, or is not, compatible with the requirements of articles 5(4). It looks at the facts of the particular case to see whether there was a failure to proceed with reasonable despatch having regard to all the material circumstances".
"The chief omission I have noted is any written report by Dr T, X's Responsible Medical Officer. Hopefully, I will be able to have sight of this prior to the Tribunal".
"The Tribunal was fully cognisant of the need to determine X's application as quickly as possible, which is why we gave the directions we did. We also bore in mind the importance, from the perspective both of the public at large and of the patient, of arriving at the right decision".
"My formulation of the test is not disputed by the claimant. This claim depends on the application of it to the facts of the case".