Search results for ‘Subject term:"mental health problems"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 5 of 5
The nearest relative under the Mental Health Act 2007
- Authors:
- CURRAN Christopher, HEWITT David
- Journal article citation:
- Openmind, 152, July 2008, pp.24-25.
- Publisher:
- MIND
This article focuses on the changes the government had made to the nearest relative scheme (NR) in the 2007 Mental Health Act, which amends the arrangements in the 1983 Mental Health Act.
Objection, purpose and normality: three ways in which the courts have inhibited safeguarding
- Author:
- HEWITT David
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Adult Protection, 14(6), 2012, pp.280-286.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
This paper considers three ways in which the English courts have sought to define deprivation of liberty, and maybe limit the effect of safeguards against it. Two significant decisions of the Court of Appeal were considered, together with one each of the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. Consideration was also given to the context of those decisions, as disclosed in official policy documents and at least one piece of academic research. The author concluded that the decisions in question have limited the circumstances that will amount to deprivation of liberty and thereby reduced the scope of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The English courts’ understanding of false imprisonment is diverging from their understanding of deprivation of liberty. The English courts differ from the European Court of Human Rights in their understanding of the relevance of purpose to the question of deprivation of liberty. If the former are correct, the DoLS – and maybe even the Mental Health Act – are redundant.
The nearest relative: losing the right to concur?
- Author:
- HEWITT David
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Adult Protection, 12(3), August 2010, pp.35-39.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
Under the Mental Health Act 1983, a person who is suffering from a mental illness may be admitted to hospital and detained there. This is only the case, however, if the person’s nearest relative has not objected to such a course. A recent High Court case examined what it means to object to detention, and may have broadened the circumstances in which an objection is deemed to have been made. The judge said that although a nearest relative might be believed not to have objected, detention will only be lawful if that belief was reasonable. He also suggested that in some cases, objection should be inferred from a nearest relative's previous conduct. This article describes the case and discusses the implications of the decision.
Mental health: impact of the 2007 Act on children
- Author:
- HEWITT David
- Journal article citation:
- Childright, 251, November 2008, pp.16-18.
- Publisher:
- Children's Legal Centre
Each year approximately 3,000 children are admitted to hospital for mental health care. Around 350 of these are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. This article discusses how recent legal change to the Act will impact on children. Coverage on electro-convulsive therapy; age-appropriate accommodation, and the Zone of Parental Control is included.
The approved mental health professional and the nearest relative: detention need not be negligent, even if it is unlawful
- Author:
- HEWITT David
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Adult Protection, 12(4), November 2010, pp.43-45.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
A patient may be detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (HM Government, 1983) only if his nearest relative does not object. Whether an objection has been made will be a question for the approved mental health professional (AMHP) concerned, but their answer will have to be a reasonable one. If the belief of the AMHP is not reasonable, a patient's section 3 admission will be unlawful. That does not mean, however, that the AMHP's conduct will necessarily be negligent, or that the patient will be entitled to damages. This article describes the case of Mr M, who remained in hospital after he was discharged from detention under the MHA, but before long was detained again under section 3. Mr M alleged that his re-detention was illegal, primarily because his nearest relative had objected to it. The judge ruled that his detention was indeed unlawful and ordered his release. Several months later, Mr M came back before the court seeking damages against the local authority who employed the AMHP. In this case the judge decided not to give permission for a damages claim, holding that even though Mr M’s detention had been unlawful ‘there is no reasonable prospect of success in any negligence claim’. This article discusses this logic of this position.