Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULT: GJ v Foundation Trust, PCT and Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : gj-v-foundation-trust-pct-and-secretary-of-state-for-health-2009-ewhc-2972-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 4, 2009, 04:31 AM
Article ID : 87231

(Court of Protection; Charles J; 20 November 2009)

The deprivation of liberty of a person with a mental disorder who lacked capacity to consent must either be authorised by the Court of Protection, or in accordance with the procedures set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, or in order to give life-sustaining treatment or to prevent serious deterioration while a decision was sought from the court. Authorisation could only be given if the person was not ineligible to be deprived of liberty under the 2005 Act. In particular deprivation of liberty was only possible under the 2005 Act if the patient did not satisfy the criteria in the Mental Health Act 1983, which had primacy. The court should focus on the reason why the person should be deprived of his liberty by applying a 'but for' test, effectively incorporating an application of the status test or gateway set by para 12(1)(a) and (b) of Schedule 1A. Two key questions were: if the need for a package of physical treatment did not exist, would the court conclude that the person concerned should be detained in a hospital, in circumstances that amounted to a deprivation of liberty, and whether the person's need for the package of physical treatment was the only effective reason for considering that the person should be detained in hospital, in circumstances that amounted to a deprivation of liberty. If the answer to the first question was no, and the answer to the second question was yes, then the person was not a mental health patient.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from