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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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