# Arguments against cancelling hearings after a reassessment following Devon ruling

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/arguments-against-cancelling-hearings-after-a-reassessment-following-devon-ruling/332>\
**Category:** Mental Health Tribunal\
**Tags:** remote-assessment, coronavirus\
**Created:** [9 February 2021 14:03 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/arguments-against-cancelling-hearings-after-a-reassessment-following-devon-ruling/332 "2021-02-09T14:03:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lucy](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/e47774/32.png) [@Lucy](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Lucy)\
**Post date:** [9 February 2021 14:03 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/arguments-against-cancelling-hearings-after-a-reassessment-following-devon-ruling/332/1 "2021-02-09T14:03:34Z")

</div>

Has any formal guidance been issued in regards to potentially invalid applications to the MHT where a patient has been reassessed and placed on a “new” section 3 following the Devon ruling? MHT are asking for written submissions on the hospitals request to cancel the original hearing. Seems wholly unfair…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/jonathan/32/88_2.png) [@Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Jonathan)\
**Post date:** [9 February 2021 16:24 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/arguments-against-cancelling-hearings-after-a-reassessment-following-devon-ruling/332/2 "2021-02-09T16:24:19Z")

</div>

I’m not aware of any guidance. Here are some ideas.

1. You could argue that the tribunal retains jurisdiction despite the re-sectioning, as with most other [changes of status](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Change_in_status_during_tribunal_proceedings). This would be the best result. And appeal any refusal.

2. Failing that, I wonder whether the [DHSC MHA team](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Contact:Department_of_Health_and_Social_Care_-_Mental_Health_Legislation) could be persuaded to make a reference.

3. Failing that, the patient could make an application now but keep the original hearing date — and ask the DHSC to refer later in the detention period, as suggested in [R (Modaresi) v SSH [2013] UKSC 53](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(Modaresi)_v_SSH_(2013)_UKSC_53,_(2013)_MHLO_63), para 7.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lucy](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/e47774/32.png) [@Lucy](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Lucy)\
**Post date:** [10 February 2021 07:04 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/arguments-against-cancelling-hearings-after-a-reassessment-following-devon-ruling/332/3 "2021-02-10T07:04:35Z")

</div>

Thank -you for your response.

I argued points 1&3 in my statement already. I hadn’t considered the option of a referral later in the period if necessary, so will keep that in mind.

Let’s see what happens.  
Lucy