| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2005] All ER (D) 65 (May) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2005] UKHL 32 |
| Court: | House of Lords |
| Judge: | Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell |
| Representation | The claimant appeared in person. |
| Nigel Pleming QC (instructed by Capsticks) for the trust. | |
| Hugo Keith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) as advocate to the court. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 5 May 2005 |
Catchwords
Mental health - Patient - Removal and detention - Warrant to search for and remove patients - Lawfulness of execution of warrant - , s 135.
The Case
When issuing a warrant under s135 of the the magistrate had no power to identify the professionals who were to accompany the police officer in the execution of the warrant. It was not permissible to imply into s135 a power to insist that named professionals were there when the police officer executed the warrant.
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
