August 2022 update


  • Magic Book. The Magic Book is a database of contact details. The main idea is to add the hospitals and other places you visit (not just your own place of work). To create/edit contacts, there is no need to log in and the process is very quick and simple. See Magic Book

  • Mental Health Law Online CPD scheme: 12 points for £60. Obtain 12 CPD points online by answering monthly questionnaires. The scheme is an ideal way to obtain your necessary hours, or to evidence your continued competence. It also helps to support the continued development of this website, and your subscriptions (and re-subscriptions) are appreciated. For full details and to subscribe, see CPD scheme.

  • Cases. By the end of this month, Mental Health Law Online contained 2247 categorised cases

  • Chronology. See August 2022 chronology for this month’s changes to the website in date order.


  • Case (LPA and contact). Hertfordshire County Council (21 006 495) [2022] MHLO 2 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman’s summary: “We have not found fault in the way the Council made its decisions regarding safeguarding enquiries, but there was a delay in its completion of the assessments and there was fault in the way the Council communicated with Dr C about the powers of the attorney and the requirement to apply to the Court of Protection. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.”

  • Case (Admissibility of foreign conviction). Re W-A [2022] EWCA Civ 1118 — A paedophile argued that his conviction in Spain was inadmissible in English care proceedings. The judge noted that, while this was a public law case under Part IV Children Act 1989, the same issues may arise in a private law case under Part I, or the inherent jurisdiction relating to children, or a MCA 2005 welfare case. The Court of Appeal concluded that: (1) the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] 1 KB 587 (which, unless distinguished, would render the conviction inadmissible) did not apply, as it would be incompatible with the welfare-based and protective character of family proceedings; (2) in family proceedings all relevant evidence is admissible; and (3) a previous finding or conviction stands as presumptive proof of the underlying facts, but it is open to a party to establish on a balance of probability that it should not be relied upon.

  • Case (Residence). K v N Council [2022] MHLO 1 (COP) — The court had to decide where K (who only spoke Polish) should reside: (a) her current culturally Polish case home, where all staff and residents could speak Polish; or (b) a care home proposed by her Polish family which was much closer to them, enabling regular visits, but at which Polish staff were only sometimes on duty. The “magnetic factor” was the need for K to be able to communicate freely 24/7, unhindered by any language barrier, so it was in her best interests to remain where she was.

  • Case (Funding holidays). R (BG) v Suffolk County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1047 — The council had decided no longer to fund the family holidays of BG and KG (who have autism and learning disability) on the basis that it was no longer including holiday travel and accommodation costs in personal budgets. The High Court quashed this decision, holding that the council had the power to provide financial support for recreational activity and holidays under section 18 Care Act 2014, and ordered a fresh needs assessment. The council appealed but was unsuccessful.

  • Case (Sex and contact). Hull City Council v KF [2022] EWCOP 33 — KF, a woman with moderate learning disability, wanted to have sex with her partner KW on the night before he was due to be sentenced for sexual violence which had nearly killed her. The judge noted that the lack of bail conditions meant that only the COP proceedings offered her any protection. The court had previously decided that she had capacity to engage in sexual relations in general, but on this occasion decided that she lacked capacity to make decisions about: (a) contact with KW, including unsupervised contact with him whether overnight or at all; (b) sexual relations with KW; (c) support required to keep her safe when having unsupervised contact with KW. Unsurprisingly, the court decided that it was not in KF’s best interests to have any unsupervised contact with KW.

  • Case (Non-treatment of eating disorder). A Mental Health NHS Trust v BG [2022] EWCOP 26 — (1) The judge decided it was not in BG’s best interests to receive further treatment for eating disorder, and she subsequently died. (2) It would not be proper for a decision for this gravity to be made in secret, so the blanket reporting restrictions order was discontinued and publication of some information was permitted.


  • Mental capacity law newsletter. 39 Essex Chambers, ‘Mental Capacity Report’ (issue 124, July 2022) — “Highlights this month include: (1) In the Health, Welfare and Deprivation of Liberty Report: Injunctions against family members; Draft LPS forms published; and serious medical treatment applications. (2) In the Practice and Procedure Report: Remote observations of hearings and new SRA guidance on vulnerable clients. (3) In the Wider Context Report: Mental Health Bill Update; Archie Battersbee case in the Court of Appeal; Posthumous use of embryos; and CAMHS gatekeeping. (4) In the Scotland Report: World Congress and Scott Review Updates; Learning Disabilities and Mental Health legislation; and permanence orders.”

  • MH Bill committee. House of Lords, ‘Draft Mental Health Bill Committee’ (HL Deb 4 July 2022, vol 823, col 865) — The following motion was agreed: “That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses on 27 June 2022 (CP 699), and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 16 December 2022.”