The 13 July 2022 hearing
The 13 July 2022 hearing
The Tribunal recorded Dr Padayatchi,, OO’s then responsible clinician, as having said that she was in agreement with the assessment of Dr Kottalgi (a consultant forensic psychiatrist) that OO could be conditionally discharged. She was “confident that it will be possible to put in place a suitable care package in the community which will permit safe management of the risks” and she “did not think that testing by unescorted leave” was a necessary preliminary to discharge”. However, three obstacles lay in the way of an immediate conditional discharge:
an assessment by the community forensic team was outstanding;
funding for OO’s accommodation in the community had yet to be secured; and
OO had yet to be sentenced in relation to his conviction of 31 May 2022.
Rather than order a deferred conditional discharge, the Tribunal decided to adjourn the matter and make directions for the provision of further information because it could see that “with further information and clarification an immediate or deferred conditional discharge might be appropriate, which is what the care team suggest” (see paragraph [6] of the 13 July 2022 decision notice).
- Heading
- This decision may be made public (rule 14(7) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI No 2698))
- Factual and procedural background
- The 13 July 2022 hearing
- Events between the 13 July 2022 hearing and the 29 November 2022 hearing
- The 29 November 2022 hearing
- The Permission stage
- The hearing of the substantive appeal before the Upper Tribunal
- The relevant law and procedure rules
- Discussion
- Equality of arms
- Opportunity to cross-examine witnesses relied upon
- Conclusions on procedural fairness
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 190 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)