I am new to S117 aftercare processes and have come across a situation that I just can’t find an answer to. A service user was detained under section 3 in 2022, but in 2023 that section was found to be invalid, during an audit due to issues with the AMHP’s warranty, which had expired. My question would be, is the patient still eligible for any S117 services provided upon discharge or would it be taken away?
When I have experienced unlawful detention (in the NHS) usually, for some kind of administrative error, the justification is sometimes given that the person required admission regardless. The cynic in me thinks that is used to fend off litigation. However, there is some logic there and in most cases the person is in hospital and reassessed.
I think the same principle could be applied here. To all intents and purpose, the person was detained. It would be pretty cruel INMHO to deny the S117 Aftercare
Mind you, for a person to be entitled to S117, they have to be discharged from a qualifying order as you know.
Whilst I’m not disputing the circumstances, declaring that an application is ‘invalid’ has no bearing on whether or not it existed, so unless the responsible authorities were successful in a legal challenge, their duties under s.117 stand.
1 Like
I agree with Guy.
Another way of putting it is that the s3 application appeared to be duly made at the time, so by virtue of 6(3) MHA, the hospital was lawfully allowed to detain the patient without checking the AMHP’s credentials. Therefore, the patient was undoubtedly detained under s3, even if they in fact shouldn’t have been.
3 Likes
Thank you Martin, Guy and Richard for your responses and the points you have all made are what I was hoping for.