January 2026 update

Updates MHLO monthly updates
1

Website

  • Magic Book. The Magic Book is a database of contact details. The main idea is to add the hospitals and other places you visit (not just your own place of work). To create/edit contacts, there is no need to log in and the process is very quick and simple. See Magic Book

  • Mental Health Law Online CPD scheme: 12 points for £60. Obtain 12 CPD points online by answering monthly questionnaires. The scheme is an ideal way to obtain your necessary hours, or to evidence your continued competence. It also helps to support the continued development of this website, and your subscriptions (and re-subscriptions) are appreciated. For full details and to subscribe, see CPD scheme.

Cases

  • Cases. By the end of this month, Mental Health Law Online contained 2534 categorised cases

  • Chronology. See January 2026 chronology for this month’s changes to the website in date order.

  • Case (Testamentary capacity). Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch) — A will was challenged on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity and, alternatively, fraudulent calumny.

  • Case (Leave recommendations). WM v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKUT 396 (AAC) — (1) The tribunal had been wrong to believe that it could not make a statutory leave recommendation in relation to a patient who already had some s17 leave of absence. The purpose of recommendations is to assist in identifying the best way forward for the patient. There are no statutory words limiting the discretion, and to do so would produce an absurdity: it would be unworkable and impracticable to limit the power to recommend different types of leave, which are appropriate at different stages of treatment and can have different purposes. (2) The notice of appeal had been served late but an extension was granted: the reasons for the delay (including difficulty in supplying means evidence for Legal Aid) were no fault of the appellant, and the FTT in giving permission had sought the UT’s guidance.

  • Case (Ex turpi causa). Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd [2026] UKSC 2 — The claimant killed three men (delusionally believing that he was killing them for being paedophiles), was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, then sought compensation for the consequences of those unlawful killings. (1) The Supreme Court first considered the “threshold question”: asking in what circumstances the illegality defence is engaged. All the previous caselaw involved diminished responsibility, but the difference between that and insanity (whether on the basis of not knowing the nature and quality of the act, or of not knowing it was wrong) was just a matter of degree and so the same principles applied. The killings were unlawful conduct for the purpose of engaging the illegality defence. (2) On the facts of the case, the negligence claims were barred by the illegality defence: (a) the underlying purpose of the prohibition transgressed (you shall not kill) would be enhanced by denial of the claim; (b) policy considerations were in favour of denial; (c) denial would not be disproportionate response to the illegality.

  • Case (Ex turpi causa). Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 138 — The claimant killed three men, was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, then sought damages from G4S, the police, the NHS trust and the county council. The defendants argued that his claim should be struck out on the grounds of illegality, on the basis of: (a) the “consistency principle” (inconsistency with the criminal law and civil law); (b) the “public confidence principle”; and (c) other public policy considerations (the impact on NHS funding, and deterring unlawful killing). The Court of Appeal (2-1) decided that there was “a coherent and bright line distinction for the purposes of the ex turpi causa doctrine, between those who are criminally responsible for their acts whether fully or partially, and those who are not responsible for their acts because they do not know what they are doing is morally and legally wrong”. The High Court’s decision was therefore upheld and the claim could continue. [Overturned by the Supreme Court.]

  • Case (Inadequate reasons about treatment). MK v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2025] MHLO 17 (UT) — The clinical team’s evidence had been that the s37/41 patient was not receiving any medical treatment beyond the “standard inpatient nursing care which was available as the default position for all patients” and that, although he was benefiting from the care he was receiving, he did not need to be detained to receive it and it did not amount to treatment for mental disorder (e.g. he might benefit from support to understand the wisdom of behaving differently, and might deteriorate on discharge, but had capacity to make his unwise decisions). The tribunal just said it counted as medical treatment under s145, found that he was benefiting from it, and failed to explain adequately how it had dealt with the evidence.

  • Case (Sentence reduced). R v Holland [2025] EWCA Crim 1628 — The trial judge was in error in not approaching this sentencing exercise by considering, separately from the question of mitigation, whether the appellant’s culpability was reduced (applying the Guideline on Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments). Having considered impairment, and mitigation, the Court of Appeal quashed the extended sentence of eight years, comprising a custodial element of four years with an extension period of four years, and imposed in its place a determinate sentence of 40 months.

  • Case (Aftercare accommodation charging complaint). London Borough of Lewisham (LGSCO, 18 010 781) — Ombudsman’s summary: “Faults by the Trust, Council and CCG led to Mrs X paying for accommodation which should have been free section 117 aftercare. Faults by the Council in dealing with Ms X’s enquiries and complaints caused her unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has already offered a fair remedy for Ms X’s injustice. The Trust, Council and CCG have accepted the Ombudsmen’s recommendations for service improvements and to address the injustice to Mrs X. We have therefore completed our investigation.”

  • Case (Aftercare accommodation complaint). Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (LGSCO, 19 002 160) — Ombudsman’s summary: “We uphold this complaint. Miss A’s supported housing met the definition of aftercare for the purposes of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Council was at fault in declining to fund it on the basis that Miss A chose to move to supported housing and could have a different care provider from her landlord. Those were not the correct legal tests to determine aftercare. Miss A has suffered a financial loss. The Council will refund the payments she has made to date and make arrangements to fund future housing costs. It will also apologise and pay Miss A £500 to reflect her avoidable distress.”

Legislation

Resources

News

  • New website layout. Mental Health Law Online has a new layout! Many aspects remain familiar, but now we have: improved mobile experience (works well as an “Add to Home Screen” app); improved search bar; improved site menu; new “appearance” menu (dark mode, text size, screen width etc); improved tables of contents; and improvements to infoboxes. Have a look.

Events

  • Event. Event:MHLA: Panel course (London, 16-17 March 2026) — The Mental Health Lawyers Association is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s accreditation scheme (formerly called the ‘panel’). Cost: £300 (members), £390 (non-members), £270 (group discount). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.

  • Event. Event:COPPA: In Conversation with the Vice President (Newcastle, 5 February 2026) — The Court of Protection Practitioners Association (North East), Family Law Bar Association Newcastle and Northumbria University Law School are holding a Q&A event “In conversation with the Vice President” at which Mrs Justice Theis (Vice President of the Court of Protection) and the local lead judges (His Honour Judge Smith and District Judge Temple) will be answering questions. Cost: free. Location: Northumbria University Law School (City Campus East -1, ground floor room 003). It will start at 6pm (arrivals from 5.30pm) with refreshments to follow. Places should be booked by emailing admin@coppagroup.org and questions can also be submitted via that email address.

Jobs