[2024] UKUT 190 (AAC)

I directed a remote oral hearing of the substantive appeal, which took place on the Cloud Video Platform. Mr Pezzani represented OO. Neither Respondent was represented at the hearing, although each produced a brief written submission.

By the date of the hearing OO had been sentenced in respect of the sexual offence of which he had been convicted on 31 May 2022. For that conviction he received another hospital order with a restriction order (section 37/41).

Following the hearing, I directed the parties to make written submissions on the issue of relief (should I decide to allow the appeal), which they duly did.

Mr Pezzani, on behalf of OO, argued for the setting aside of the FtT Decision and the remittal of the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing on the basis that OO had not yet had the lawful judicial consideration of his detention to which he was entitled, and any other result would not be just. He did not argue for the remaking of the FtT Decision by the Upper Tribunal.

Weightmans LLP, on behalf of the First Respondent, took a neutral position on the appeal.

Ms Munley of the Mental Health Casework Section of the Ministry of Justice, for the Second Respondent, made a written submission to the effect that should the appeal be allowed and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing, the Secretary of State was willing to make a discretionary referral in relation to the second detention authority.

Mr Pezzani acknowledged that, as a practical matter, the First-tier Tribunal could be expected to consolidate multiple applications/references under rule 5(3)(b) (see paragraph [33] below).