# How should the tribunal interpret the "necessity" criterion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Mental Health Tribunal\ **Tags:** statutory-criteria\ **Created:** [2 July 2026 10:33 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/how-should-the-tribunal-interpret-the-necessity-criterion/5858 "2026-07-02T10:33:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**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:** [3 July 2026 09:43 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/how-should-the-tribunal-interpret-the-necessity-criterion/5858/3 "2026-07-03T09:43:10Z")
Your point about “such treatment” is how I’ve always tried to explain it: > [@CTO statutory criteria](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/cto-statutory-criteria/100/3): > > What seems to happen is that the tribunal addresses the necessity criterion in s72(1)(c)(ii) in the same way as it would for detention cases, where “such treatment” refers back to the previous criterion which is about treatment while detained in hospital – even though for CTOs the previous criterion is only about “treatment”. I was just trying to find a way for my wayward tribunal to have been correct, and ended up quite liking it! And, yes, it’s funny that we’re belatedly discussing this just before it all gets changed anyway. The 1959 Act wording was clearer (check out s25 and s123). The tribunal just had to consider mental disorder (no nature/degree mentioned) and necessity (health/safety/others), and the necessity test was explicitly about whether “the patient should continue to be liable to be detained”. (Nature and degree were mentioned in s25 and I guess added to the discharge criteria partly because of _Winterwerp_’s “kind or degree”.) --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/how-should-the-tribunal-interpret-the-necessity-criterion/5858)._