June 2022 update


  • 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. By the end of this month, Mental Health Law Online contained 2225 categorised cases

  • Chronology. See June 2022 chronology for this month’s changes to the website in date order.


  • Case (Re X procedure and 16/17 year olds). Bolton Council v KL [2022] EWCOP 24 — This detailed judgment addresses a COP9 application made by Bolton Council prior to the hearing for reconsideration of the decision to take the application out of the streamlined (Re X) procedure. It concluded: “KL’s age at the time of the application, his being subject to a care order at the time of the application, his absence of family contact and the imminence of transition to adult services were all reasons which clearly led to the conclusion that he should be independently represented, by joinder as a party and appointment of a litigation friend for him.” The judge then explained the court’s approach: “(a) the court is unlikely to consider that the streamlined procedure is appropriate for authorisation of deprivation of liberty in the living arrangements of 16/17 year olds; (b) the court is unlikely to be critical of an applicant for bringing an application for authorisation of deprivation of liberty in the living arrangements of a 16/17 year old either by COP1 application to the appropriate hub court, or by streamlined application to the central registry at First Avenue House. It follows from (a) that the procedure adopted post-issue is likely to be substantially the same. If/when an in-person attended hearing is required, consideration will be given to transfer to a local hearing centre.”

  • Case (Coronavirus vaccination). A Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ [2022] EWCOP 21 — (1) The CCG’s plan was for someone to befriend FZ over a number of visits, then for a vaccinator to attend and inject her swiftly before she was able to understand what was happening. No physical intervention and restraint was proposed and the court “would not entertain such an application were it to be made.” (2) The court took the usual orthodox view as its starting point, by analogy with the High Court’s approach to children: it is “very difficult to foresee a case in which a vaccination approved for use in children, including vaccinations against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, would not be endorsed by the Court as being in the child’s best interests absent a credible development in medical science or peer reviewed research evidence indicating significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety of the vaccine or a well evidenced medical contraindication specific to the subject child”. (3) However, wider best interests considerations include how the vaccination would be administered. In this case, FZ would resist, and the plan would likely fail, at least on the first attempt, and result in trauma for her and her family: overall, it was not in her best interests.

  • Case (Residence). A NHS Foundation Trust v G [2021] EWCOP 69 — G, now 27 years old, had been in a children’s hospital since the age of 13. The court decided that it would be in her best interests to be discharged to a care home instead of to her family. The CCG were unprepared to pay the cost of a move home at that point so in reality there were only two options (the care home or the hospital).

  • Case (Injunctions). A NHS Foundation Trust v G [2022] EWCOP 25 — G, now 27 years old, had been in a children’s hospital since the age of 13. A previous judgment had decided that she should be transferred to a care home prior to any return home, but her father had sabotaged that placement. The Trust sought injunctive relief against G’s father, mother and grandmother, in order to put in place clear boundaries to manage their behaviour. The family argued unsuccessfully that the s16(5) MCA 2005 power to make further “necessary or expedient” orders applied only in the context of the appointment of deputies, that s47(1) MCA 2005 (and therefore s37(1) Supreme Court Act 1981) is not apt to cover restricting behaviours in the context of either a hospital or care home, and that little or no weight should be afforded to the hearsay evidence of anonymous nurses about the father’s behaviour. The court granted the relief sought.

  • Case (Unlawful detention). K v Clinical Director of Drogheda Department of Psychiatry [2022] IEHC 248 — The patient was discharged by the tribunal but almost immediately re-detained, initially under short-term holding power (under the Southern Irish MHA), when she tried to leave. Her detention was unlawful for two reasons: (a) she did not fall within the definition of a “voluntary patient” (this was because she was not being treated; her desire to leave was irrelevant); (b) the the statutory forms had been incorrectly completed (and the “lamentable state of affairs” was not cured by a subsequent affidavit). The judge directed her release but asked her solicitor to advise her to consider remaining in hospital voluntarily.