The Mental Health Practice - PRINCIPAL - Tammy Groves, Solicitor
RSS

Delivered by FeedBurner


Recent Posts

Review of the Operation of ss.135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales - April 2014
My heart bleeds when I see vulnerable patients being represented very badly
Do Tribunals love CTOs as much as Psychiatrists do? Part 2
Do Tribunals love CTOs as much as Psychiatrists do?
Patients' experiences of the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health)

Categories

CTOs Tribunal MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2011] UKUT 107 (AAC
Legal aid cuts, Reform of legal aid, House of Commons Justice Committee Report
Patients' experience of Mental Health Tribunals, Report of Administrative Justice and Tribunal's
Qualifications of legal representatives
Review of Mental Health Legislation
RN v CC (2011) UKUT x (AAC, CTOs
S.2, Mental Health Act, Mental Health Law, Tribunal, Application, Tammy Groves,R (Modaresi) v SSH
Zombification, Tony Zigmond, Increase in Admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983, CTOs
powered by

The Mental Health Law Blog

CTOs Tribunal MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2011] UKUT 107 (AAC

Do Tribunals love CTOs as much as Psychiatrists do?

When CTOs first came out, I was involved in a few cases where Tribunals foolishly ordered a deferred discharge of a patient who was detained on s.3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, with the  express intent that this was to facilitate the patient being made subject to a CTO instead.  What the Tribunal had failed to grasp that a CTO is dependent on a S.3 being in existence - the s.3 goes “dormant” when the CTO is implemented, and can spring back into existence if  the CTO is revoked.  Accordingly at the time that the deferred discharge becomes effective,   any CTO that has been put in place by that date is automatically discharged too.
Website Builder provided by  Vistaprint