I find the whole premise a bit contradictory or silly when it comes to the tribunal outcome.
If the professional personnel made the decision to detain a patient due to their disorder, and then it was confirmed that the individual didn’t warrant that detention via a court hearing based on all the 28 days of reports about the patient etc. To me - that signals that there has been a mistake in what has been processed in the patient’s application for section.
It’s like a person applying for a role in marketing and sales - they do a great interview - succeed; get hired - but months down the line - it is proven they are consistently incompetent at doing their job after making no sales. As a result - after lengthy discussion in the management team - they decide to terminate that person’s contract. In essence this example would show that the management team that hired the person got it wrong and it shows a fundamental flaw in the system they use to recruit staff.
However, if the person met the job’s demands then they would remain in that position. Nothing would change.
The other example is - perhaps - a bit extreme haha. Someone is wrongly incarcerated for a murder, the police had no evidence apart from eye witness testimony that this person committed the crime. The person protested for years they were innocent. It was only until new evidence came about that proved this individual did not commit the murder - it was someone else.
Doesn’t these two examples above apply similarly to a person interviewed meeting the criteria for detainment. However, once in that position - the staff all can see that this person hasn’t got a mental disorder to the extent they lack capacity or insight. So, it would prove that the assessment team did not do an appropriate job in making sure that the person being sectioned had a disorder that was warranted. It shows a flaw in what they have done. A mistake.
How can the patient then prove that the original assessment or interview conducted or reported by a person in a professional position that got them sectioned was wrong?
I’m finding the idea of insight and capacity a ridiculous concept. As it is used constantly by those in authority as a reason to pardon themselves from their errors. It’s like moving the goal posts. The people assessing capacity do not have evidence to validate their biased opinions - yet - that is still used as fact to ruin someone’s life.
*To clear up my comment isn’t targeting what you have written Richard. It’s the system that is silly.