[2025] UKUT 009 (AAC)

Ms Kelly of counsel, for JB, maintained that appropriate medical treatment was not available to JB and the Tribunal’s finding that it was amounted to a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law, necessitating that the FtT Decision be set aside and remitted to be reheard. Ms Kelly also invited me to make findings on the approach taken by the Tribunal in relation to fact-finding and whether the Tribunal’s approach was lawful.

The First Respondent provided a statement from JB’s new responsible clinician, Dr Kasmi, that spoke both to JB’s diagnosis and the (current) availability of appropriate medical treatment on the ward.

Dr Kasmi ventured that there had been no intention to restart psychological sessions as at the date of JB’s mental health tribunal and that “to outline that they were going to be offered was an error in the evidence giving”. In other words, he accepted that what Dr Al Noufoury said in evidence at the Tribunal was not true.

However, Dr Kasmi said that whether this led to the Tribunal deciding to uphold the detention based on appropriate medical treatment being available was a matter for the Upper Tribunal to decide. Dr Kasmi’s evidence was that appropriate medical treatment was available to JB on the ward, and all the statutory criteria to continued detention were met.

The Second Respondent took a neutral role in the appeal.

None of the parties requested an oral hearing of the appeal. I didn’t consider that the interests of justice required one.