— At a hearing in January 2025 the tribunal decided that the patient had no mental disorder and granted a deferred conditional discharge. In September 2025 the panel refused to reconvene, allowing a further six months for arrangements, and in October 2025 a salaried tribunal judge again refused. (Both the hospital and patient wanted the tribunal to reconvene: the hospital had lost an appeal against the original decision, and wanted to argue that there had been a deterioration; the patient wanted to argue that he was being unlawfully detained as the conditions had proved impossible to meet so he should be discharged without them.) On an appeal against the October 2025 refusal the Upper Tribunal decided that: (1) The caselaw can be summarised as: "Patients who do not have a mental disorder may be detained for a reasonable period in order to make arrangements to ease them back into the community. If those arrangements are not identified within a reasonable time, the patient must be discharged either absolutely or subject only to the possibility of recall." However, the panel had allowed a further six months because of the complexity of the task and the STJ had been entitled to refuse. (2) The tribunal will retain its full powers when it reconvenes, and in particular will have to make a finding on mental disorder on the evidence available at that time. If the issue arises whether a tribunal should make a different finding at a reconvened hearing, fairness requires that the patient be given notice.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/AN_v_St_Andrew%27s_Healthcare_(2026)_UKUT_32_(AAC)?id=050226-1213