— The patient challenged the adequacy of the tribunal's reasons in relation to its refusal to adjourn or to allow withdrawal. That was unsuccessful but the decision was set aside on different grounds. The reasons in relation to the statutory criteria were inadequate: (a) the tribunal had recorded that the nature was "chronic, relapsing and remitting" but not why that made continued detention for treatment appropriate; (b) the tribunal had dealt with health, but in relation to safety and protection of others used phrases that did not adequately explain why the necessity test was satisfied (e.g. "the Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that members of the public might respond" and "the Tribunal would be concerned for the protection of others").
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re_H_(inadequate_reasons)_(2025)_MHLO_18_(FTT)?id=160426-2015