Does anyone know whether there has been a challenge to the CTO statutory criteria on the basis that the patient only needs to have a Mental disorder of a nature and degree making it appropriate for him to need medical treatment rather than appropriate for him to be subject to CTO in order to receive medical treatment? (I.e anyone on meds has a mental disorder of a nature and degree requiring treatment so how would anyone on meds ever successfully challenge on this ground?) The second branch also only requires treatment rather than treatment under CTO.
I have always gone for liability to recall instead because of this but wonder if it could be argued that it implicitly refers to medical treatment under CTO not medical treatment per se.
I have always taken the same approach as you, as I also think that the nature/degree/health/safety/others wording only applies to medical treatment. If you’re arguing for the patient to continue treatment you realistically have to concede those criteria (and appropriate medical treatment), and focus on the need for the recall power. The same factual points may be relevant.
It could be argued that the criteria apply to medical treatment “while under a CTO” - it may be what was intended by the draughtsman and I think most people think this is what it does mean - but there has been no published case on this point.