![[2024] UKUT 411 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
I therefore conclude that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involves a material error of law. I allow the appeal and set aside the decision under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
What happens next
The case must (under section 12(2)(b)(i)) be remitted for re-hearing by a new tribunal subject to the directions above.
Thomas Church
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 10 November 2024
Corrected on 10 December 2024
- 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