— On review it was decided that the tribunal panel had given inadequate reasons for not discharging a s3 patient. (1) The tribunal described the nature of the disorder as relapsing and remitting, but did not say why that made liability to be detained appropriate. (2) Similarly, the tribunal made statements about the degree of the disorder (delusional beliefs etc) but did not say why that made liability to be detained appropriate. (3) The tribunal did not address the appropriate treatment test. (4) The tribunal did not address whether the treatment that the patient was receiving was being given in the least restrictive environment or not. [Comment: is this really a separate requirement?] (5) In this case there needed to be, but was not, a clear finding of fact on the issue of compliance. The reasons set out the patient’s arguments, but not whether they had been accepted. There needed to be a fuller explanation as to why the tribunal concluded that the patient would not take his medication and would relapse. (6) The RC would have discharged the patient had suitable accommodation been available. This not only goes against the conclusion on nature (i.e. the relapsing nature was not itself a barrier to discharge) but also means the tribunal should have considered adjourning to obtain sufficient information to decide the case.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re_I_(inadequate_reasons)_(2025)_MHLO_20_(FTT)?id=240926-1106