# Ending S117 aftercare for conditionally discharged patient

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/ending-s117-aftercare-for-conditionally-discharged-patient/1430>\
**Category:** Mental Health Act\
**Tags:** conditional-discharge, aftercare\
**Created:** [10 January 2023 12:28 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/ending-s117-aftercare-for-conditionally-discharged-patient/1430 "2023-01-10T12:28:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JadieH](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@JadieH](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/JadieH)\
**Post date:** [10 January 2023 12:28 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/ending-s117-aftercare-for-conditionally-discharged-patient/1430/1 "2023-01-10T12:28:50Z")

</div>

Looking for people’s views on whether you would end someone’s S117 eligibility if you felt that they no longer had MH needs, but they were still a conditionally discharged patient with the potential to recall by the MoJ?

Thanks 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SteveC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@SteveC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/SteveC)\
**Post date:** [10 January 2023 12:54 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/ending-s117-aftercare-for-conditionally-discharged-patient/1430/2 "2023-01-10T12:54:24Z")

</div>

If a person is conditionally discharged, then they remain subject to s37/41, which means that the Secretary of State or a tribunal continue to believe the person is suffering from a mental disorder. The purpose of a conditional discharge is to allow the MoJ to recall the person to hospital for treatment [for their mental health]. So no, I can’t see any way that a person who remains subject to s37/41 can be discharged from s117.  
If the service believes this person no longer has any mental health needs, then I suggest the best way forward is to recommend absolute discharge.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sturner](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Sturner](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Sturner)\
**Post date:** [16 January 2023 15:58 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/ending-s117-aftercare-for-conditionally-discharged-patient/1430/3 "2023-01-16T15:58:10Z")

</div>

Just wondering what peoples view is for an absolute discharge as S117 aftercare responsibilities

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/jonathan/32/88_2.png) [@Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Jonathan)\
**Post date:** [30 January 2023 14:43 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/ending-s117-aftercare-for-conditionally-discharged-patient/1430/4 "2023-01-30T14:43:53Z")

</div>

I agree with Steve on conditional discharge. Also, the Community Treatment Order for unrestricted patients is very like conditional discharge for restricted patients, and the statute doesn’t allow the s117 duty to end during a CTO (see [s117](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MHA_1983_s117)(2)).

In relation to absolute discharge, I don’t think there is the same principled objection. You’d just have to consider the facts of the case.