Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 439 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 3572 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Burnett J

Representation Stephen Simblet (instructed by R H Campbell-Taylor) for the claimant.
  Amy Street (instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 27 June 2008

Catchwords

Mental health - Admission of patient to hospital - Admission for treatment - Consultation - Defendants admitting applicant to hospital for treatment - Applicant challenging lawfulness of detention on basis defendants not complying with statutory requirement for consultation prior to application for admission - Whether defendants complying with statutory procedure - Whether detention lawful - ss 3, 11(4).

The Case

Mental health Admission of patient to hospital. In granting the claimant's application for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of his compulsory admission to hospital pursuant to s3 of the the Administrative Court held that the duty imposed by s11(4) of the Act to consult the person appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient prior to making an application under s3 of the Act required that the consultation was a real exercise and not a token one. If an objection was made by the nearest relative, it did not have to be a reasonable one and did not have to be one which judged objectively was sensible, but it did have to have the effect of stopping the proposed course of action, whilst of course not shutting out alternatives available under the Act.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.