Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales

  • George J. Lodge (a1)
Extract

The function of the mental health review tribunal is defined in Part V of the Mental Health Act 1983. Together with statute and Common Law, it provides safeguards to those detained under the Act. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have strengthened these safeguards. The key articles in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act are 5(1)(e), relating to the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind; 5(4), providing that the lawfulness of such detention shall be decided speedily by a court; 6, providing for a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; and 8, establishing the right to respect for a private and family life. The latter is relevant to disclosure, nearest relatives' rights, and treatment.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
R (on the appliation of H) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal North and East London Region and Secretary of State for Health (CA) [2001] 3 WLR 512.
R (on the application of H) v. Ashworth Hospital Authority, R (on the application of Ashworth Hospital Authority) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and the North West Region [2002] EWCA Civ 923.
R (on the application of Mersey Health Care NHS Trust) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 1182 (Admin).
R (on the application of von Brandenburg) v. East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 58.
R (on the application of S) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal [2002] EWHC 2522 (Admin).
R v. Mental Health Review Tribunal for South Thames Region, ex parte Smith [1999] C.O.D. 148, cited in Jones, R. (2002) Mental Health Act Manual (8th edn) at para 1-056. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 0955-6036
  • EISSN: 1472-1473
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 11 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 58 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 18th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales

  • George J. Lodge (a1)
Submit a response

eLetters

Mental Health Review Tribunals

Sundararajan Rajagopal, Consultant Psychiatrist
28 April 2005

The special article by Lodge (Psychiatric Bulletin, 2005, 29, 149-151) provides a very useful summary of the role of the responsible medicalofficer (RMO) in relation to giving evidence at mental health review tribunal (MHRT) hearings.

I would like to consider some of the issues faced by RMOs attending these hearings. The same issues also apply to hospital managers’ hearings. />
The single most important practical difficulty is the time factor. This is especially so for general adult psychiatrists. With the advent of home treatment teams and assertive outreach teams over the last few years,the threshold for hospital admission has gradually increased, and so has the proportion of patients on the wards who are detained under the Mental Health Act. In addition to spending time preparing the reports, the RMO may also have to cancel other commitments like outpatients’ clinics in order to make themselves available to attend the hearing. Delays and adjournments, which Lodge mentions are common, further complicate the situation for a psychiatrist, who is even otherwise extremely busy. This could have implications for Consultants wanting to take up, or to continuein, posts as general adult psychiatrists. Senior House Officers and Specialist Registrars who have had to face particularly inquisitorial hearings may also decide not to pursue a career in general adult psychiatry.

Lodge mentions that the tribunal is ‘likely to be sympathetic to requests to be released after giving your evidence’. Personal experience has shown that MHRTs are very idiosyncratic in their response to such requests. It is not uncommon for an RMO to be bluntly chastened by the tribunal president that it is a ‘legal duty’ to attend the whole hearing, and that all other clinical work should take the back seat.

The therapeutic relationship between the patient and the multidisciplinary team is also potentially under threat as a result of these hearings. It is not surprising that patients, who hear their doctor,ward nurse and community care co-ordinator giving evidence contradicting them, subsequently become antagonistic towards the clinical team. Also, hearing one’s personal and psychiatric history being recounted by several different people can itself prove to be stressful, and therefore detrimental to one’s mental health. I have personally seen this distress manifest itself either during the hearing in the form of the patient becoming very tearful and walking out, or after the hearing with the patient committing self-harm or making threats against the team members.

The new Mental Health Act, which is likely to become operational in the next few years, is expected to place even greater demands on the resources of the already overstretched RMO. While it is absolutely paramount that the rights of patients detained under the Mental Health Actare safeguarded, it is also important to ensure that the legal, non-clinical requirements of the proceedings by themselves do not prove to be counter-therapeutic. Perhaps the Royal College of Psychiatrists can take the lead role in lobbying the powers that be to ensure that the right balance is struck? ... More

Conflict of interest: None Declared

Write a reply

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *