![[2024] UKUT 411 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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
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 application to the mental health tribunal himself), about the fairness of the hearing of that review and, ultimately, about his right to liberty.
- 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