Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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