Unusual question! A patient has CTO extended in accordance with S20A, but prior to the HM Hearing the CTO is revoked and patient is now under a S3. Does the fact that not holding the HM Hearing prior to the revocation make the ongoing S3 unlawful??? My opinion it doesn’t but would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts? It has been suggested that it does due to the CoP stating the HM Hearing must be convened for the extension of the CTO.
The Section 3 is still lawful, I would suggest that the Hospital Managers hearing still goes ahead as they will look at the criteria but now under section 3, furthermore, a referral to the Tribunal will now be made due to the CTO being revoked, where the criteria will also be reviewed.
Thinking aloud, the timing is important. If the s20a renewal date is after the revocation date, then there is no renewal - it hasn’t come into effect yet?
Sections 20 and 20A should be amended to either make it explicit that a Managers review for s.23 purposes must take place unless circumstances dictate otherwise (and set out what those circumstances are), or the line “…unless they discharge him under section 23 below…” should be removed.
Thank you for comments. To clarify the timings were all in accordance with the act and the new period of CTO had commenced. Revocation happened in the new CTO period but before the HM Hearing could be arranged. Our stance would be that the S3 was lawful, as the act had been complied with during each stage, and we would have held a HM Hearing to consider the S3 criteria. Would anyone have done any different? I’m struggling to understand that the law intended it to be any other way.