CTO, Tribunal and 'necessity' of recall power

Law and practice Mental Health Tribunal
1

Hi everyone,

I had a Tribunal hearing this week where the patient had recently been discharged onto a CTO. During the hearing, the doctor said in her evidence that the need for recall was only desirable and not necessary. The judge tried to redirect the doctor with her evidence, but she still did not comment that the power was necessary.

The doctor went further to advise, at present, it would actually be quicker to get the patient into hospital through a MHAA rather than using the power of recall due to bed pressures.

The patient was put onto a CTO following his first admission into hospital and the doctor said in evidence that because of this, they could not say how long it would take the patient to relapse.

All in all, somehow the tribunal still upheld the CTO. I have now received the written decision and they rely on the power of recall being necessary due to the client not wanting to take his medication and disengaging. There is no mention of the doctor’s oral evidence.

I think that it is worth appealing this decision. Do you agree and is there any case law people may know of to support our appeal.

Thanks in advance!

2

100%. They’re entitled to disagree with the RC but have to explain why. They can’t just completely ignore the evidence. If it looks as though the judge wrote the decision before the hearing how can the patient have any faith in the system? There’s some useful stuff at Appealing against a tribunal decision (MHT) - Mental Health Law Online.

If the doctor at the hearing was the RC and understood her own evidence she really ought to discharge the CTO herself.

6

Surely if that’s the RC’s view then they should have just discharged the CTO themself rather than it even going before a Tribunal.

8

I am not sure I understand the issue. Instead of appealing the RC can just discharge the section themselves.

9

I’m going to guess that either the doctor wasn’t the RC and was using coded language to signal that she disagreed with the RC, or the doctor gave an honest answer to the “necessary or desirable” question without understanding the implications (and maybe the tribunal didn’t understand either).