Mental Health

Petition of R.M. v. The Scottish Minsters [2008] CSOH 123

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:16:00 GMT

Here the petitioner, a detainee in Leverndale Hospital under a compulsion order under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, sought to challenge the effectiveness of the provisions of section 268 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the level of security applied to him was excessive and that he wished to reside in an "open ward", thus improving the quality of his life and increasing the prospects of his ultimate liberation. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there should be a formal mechanism which would enable him to challenge his conditions of security. Here the petitioner sought declarator that the respondents had failed in their statutory duty to lay before Parliament regulations in terms of sub-sections 268 (11) and (12) of the 2003 Act and the existence of such regulations were essential for the practical operation of the section as a whole. Here the court considered whether there was such a duty and whether the actings of the reposndents were unlawful.

Mrs Elizabeth Laurie v The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland and others -Paisley Sheriff Court 30/8/07

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:28:00 GMT

Appeal - Merits of decision of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland

An appeal was lodged challenging the validity of a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. It is understood to be the first case in Scotland in which a decision of the Tribunal has been directly challenged on its merits. In February 2007 the Tribunal refused an application by the present Appellant to vary a Compulsory Treatment Order in respect of her son, under which he was detained in a Psychiatric hospital. The Appellant wished to substitute hospital detention for appropriate community based measures so that her son could return home and live with her under supervision and with support. The Appellant’s son suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome. The other option before the Tribunal had been to transfer the Appellant's son to an institution which had a medium-secure Asperger Unit. This option, which the Tribunal preferred, depended very much on the terms of a report by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr. K, who worked at the specialised unit. Dr. K did not give evidence before the Tribunal. The Appellant sought to have the Tribunal’s decision set aside and to have the case remitted to the same Tribunal for fresh consideration. All parties agreed that the Tribunal’s decision was a discretionary one. In order for this to be set aside, it had to be shown that, in excercising its discretion, the Tribunal had acted unreasonably. Sheriff Principal Kerr rejected most of the Appellant's arguments. He was concerned, however, about the manner in which the Tribunal had treated the terms of Dr. K's report. In his view, Dr. K's opinion were very important to the decision which the Tribunal was called upon to make. Although the Sheriff Principal accepted that it was open to the Tribunal to proceed on the basis of a report without the need to call the author of the report as a witness, in this case the Tribunal had placed too much weight on Dr. K's report. The Tribunal had failed to call Dr. K as a witness, which it would have been entitled to do, or even to consider doing so. It had then omitted to consider how to evaluate the terms of the report appropriately. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the Tribunal for consideration anew.

Keith Robbins v. Caroline Mitchell & Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland

Sun, 13 May 2007 23:00:00 GMT

Appeal to Sheriff Principal

Lothian Health Board v. Brian Martin & Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:00:00 GMT

Appeal to Sheriff Principal

JT and Legal Guardian for KT v. A Decision by the Additional Support Needs Tribunal Dated 22 September 2006 Refusing a Request for a Co-Ordinated Support Plan to be Prepared by Stirling Council [2007] CSOH 67

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Appeal under Section 21 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004

Holmehill Limited v. The Scottish Ministers & Stakis Limited & Stirling Council

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof Before Answer - Summary Application under Th