Background
Background
Background to the hearing before the Tribunal
IN is currently detained at Broadmoor Hospital for treatment of mental disorder under section 3 of the Mental Health Act, although at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal IN was detained at St Andrew’s Hospital, Northampton.
Because this appeal turns on quite technical legal issues about procedural fairness, I don’t need to go into the detailed factual background of how and why IN came to be detained in hospital, or to provide details of his health difficulties.
Because IN didn’t apply for a mental health tribunal himself within the first six months of his detention, on 6 October 2022 the hospital managers referred his case to the mental health tribunal for review in accordance with section 68(2) of the Mental Health Act.
Because IN hadn’t appointed a representative himself, and because IN had said he didn’t want to represent himself in relation to the hearing of the reference, on 14 October 2022 a legal representative was appointed by a member of the tribunal staff to represent IN under Rule 11(7)(a) of the HESC Rules.
IN’s representative made several attempts to communicate with IN. On 19 October 2022 she tried to speak to him on the telephone, but he wouldn’t engage with her. On 31 October 2022 his representative attended the hospital at which IN was then detained to meet him in person. At that time IN was accommodated in a seclusion room due to a violent incident on the ward, and when the representative attempted to speak to IN at the door of the seclusion room he refused to come to the door or to engage at all. IN’s representative wrote to him on 7 November, and again on 22 November 2022, but received no response.
The hearing of the reference was listed to take place on 28 November 2022 by video link. As at the start of the hearing, IN’s representative had still not managed to engage with IN.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforc
- This appeal is about the Appellant, who is a patient detained at Broadmoor ( a secure psychiatric hospital). It is about his right to have his detention reviewed by a tribunal (even where he makes no
- Balancing the interests of open justice with the need to avoid a disproportionate infringement of the Appellant’s right to respect for his private and family life, I have decided not to use his name i
- Background
- The Hearing before the First-tier Tribunal
- Legal framework
- The Mental Capacity Act 2005
- The HESC Rules
- The Convention
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The permission stage
- Discussion
- Rule 11(7) appointments
- Capacity
- Capacity to make decisions about applying to the mental health tribunal
- Capacity to decide whether to appoint a representative
- Who is to assess capacity to make decisions about providing instructions?
- The Tribunal’s decision re IN’s capacity to make decisions about giving instructions
- What is a Rule 11(7)(a) appointed legal representative to do in the absence of express instructions?
- Was the representative’s appointment terminated?
- The adjournment application and the reasons for it
- Materiality
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 411 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)