Good morning, if there are CTO renewal where part 4 pre-dates parts 1,2 and 3 what does that mean for the CTO if it has since been renewed on a number of occasions since then? Would it make the CTO invalid? And does the answer change it the renewal that is the issue dates back to 2009? Not sure of the rules back then as CTO’s had only been around then since November 2008? Asking for a friend as he doesnt have an account on here.
There is no legal limit to the number of cto renewals that I know of(both as an AMHP and AHM)
Thank you. I think what is meant by this, is that if the incorrect renewal caused the cto to be invalid, does the fact that there have since been a number of cto renewals completed correctly since the mistake? I hope that makes sense.
Hi. have a look at this case
A few things to pick up on.
Part 4 of the CTO form is the administrative section. My view is that an error in Part 4 – or even a failure to complete it – is unlikely, without more, to invalidate the CTO. In that respect it is broadly analogous to a defective or incomplete H3: the defect would not automatically render the section unlawful. The Part 4 signature is not itself a mandatory statutory requirement; the operative requirements are those in s.20A.
You haven’t given dates, but on what you’ve described this may simply be a clerical error (for example, a transposed date such as 05.04.10 rather than 04.05.10). Errors of that kind do not necessarily invalidate the section. If contemporaneous records show that the s.20A criteria were in fact satisfied and completed within the correct procedural timeframes, it is unlikely that the CTO would be found unlawful on that basis alone.
As with all questions on here, this isn’t a substitute for tailored legal advice, which the patient may be entitled to if they remain subject to the Act.
On the second point - whether a defective CTO can invalidate subsequent sections. Yes; if a CTO is unlawful/invalid, any purported exercise of authority under it (such as recall/revocation) would also be unlawful, and that unlawfulness can then flow through to later detentions, including subsequent 3s and CTOs.
2 Likes