June 2025 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. By the end of this month, Mental Health Law Online contained 2486 categorised cases

  • Chronology. See June 2025 chronology for this month’s changes to the website in date order.

Cases

  • Case (“Right Care Right Person” PFD report). Sophie Cotton (Durham Constabulary) [2025] MHLO 14 (PFD) — The police refused three times to carry out a welfare check, under “Right Care Right Person” (and another time refusing a 999 call because there had been no suicide threat that day). The family then forced their own way into the home and found the deceased hanging by a ligature. The matters of concern (paraphrased) were that: the police refused to attend even when a family member was expressing the view that there was a real and immediate risk to life; the family were advised to contact mental health services who lacked power to enter locked premises; the refusal continued despite four calls and three callers (including two professional callers); the procedure for supervisor review of negative RCRP decisions causes additional delay.

  • Case (Extradition). Kruk v Judicial Authority of Poland [2020] EWHC 620 (Admin) — Extradition challenge with mental health background.

  • Case (Employment status). Scully v Northamptonshire County Council [2025] EAT 83 — Employment case involving the Care Act 2014, direct payments, and capacity arguments.

  • Case (Welfare benefits). MOC v SSWP (DLA) [2020] UKUT 134 (AAC) — Welfare benefits reduction for hospital inpatients challenged.

  • Case (Immigration). Re CE (Cameroon) [2023] UKAITUR PA011122020 — Immigration case with mental health and Article 3 background.

  • Case (Immigration). Re DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan [2020] UKUT 223 (IAC) — "Depending on the facts, a ‘person living with disability or mental ill health’ may qualify as a member of a Particular Social Group (“PSG”) either as (i) sharing an innate characteristic or a common background that cannot be changed, or (ii) because they may be perceived as being different by the surrounding society and thus have a distinct identity in their country of origin. "

  • Case (Section 139 leave refused). Appiah v Leeds City Council [2022] EWHC 2546 (KB) — This judgment is not available but here is an extract from a later judgment in the case: “The claim against D1, Leeds City Council, was struck out by order of Mrs Justice Yip DBE dated 15 July 2022 on the basis that Cs should not have leave pursuant to s.139 to bring proceedings against D1 because Cs did not have an arguable claim that D1 had acted “in bad faith or without reasonable care” pursuant to s.139 MHA 1983 - see [2022] EWHC 2546 (KB)M (“the Yip judgment”).”

  • Case (Claim for unlawful detention etc). Appiah v Leeds City Council [2025] EWHC 1537 (KB) — The claimant patient had been detained under s3 and treated for 4 months until release by the tribunal. She sued the trust for unlawful detention, false imprisonment and ECHR breaches. Her husband claimed under Article 8 for being deprived of her company. The trust applied for the claim to be struck out (on four grounds: limitation; statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds; abuse of process; failure to comply with court orders etc) but were unsuccessful. The trust had itself breached a court order in relation to ADR.

  • Case (Caesarean). Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust v AX [2025] EWCOP 21 (T3) — “The Applicants seek urgent declarations that AX lacks capacity to make decisions about the imminent birth of her second child and that it is her best interests to undergo an elective Caesarean section with associated care and treatment.”

  • Case (Potentially preventable suicide). Re Pellumb Olaj (Islington Council) [2025] MHLO 13 (PFD) — The matters of concern are: “Mr Olaj had paranoid schizophrenia and had attempted to kill himself in the past, including by trying to jump from a high window on more than one occasion, but Islington Council failed to take that into account in 2020 when housing him in a sixth floor property. I heard at inquest that, in preparing for inquest (not immediately following Mr Olaj’s death), Islington has now recognised the need to take such matters into account, but I am not clear that it has mapped a way to do this for new and existing tenants.”

  • Case (Conditions and review of detention). Spivak v Ukraine 21180/15 [2025] ECHR 136 — Breaches of Article 3 and Article 5 arising from psychiatric detention. This extract shows how much better oral hearings in hospital are in principle compared with court or paper-based hearings held elsewhere: “The applicant did not attend any of the court hearings; each time he signed a pre-typed request for the case to be considered in his absence. According to him, he - like other patients - had been forbidden by the Dnipro hospital administration to attend the court hearings and had been forced to sign waivers of his right to participate.”

  • Case (Advance decision to refuse treatment). Re AB (ADRT: Validity and applicability) [2025] EWCOP 20 (T3) — “This case demonstrates difficulties that can arise when: (a) An individual who has made an ADRT does not provide it to a healthcare professional or make clear arrangements for it to be brought to the attention of clinicians in the event that they lose capacity to make decisions about their own medical treatment. (b) The authenticity, validity and applicability of an apparent ADRT are the subject of dispute amongst the individual’s loved ones and family. (c) An ADRT which is the subject of dispute or doubt is not brought promptly to the attention of lawyers, Mental Capacity Act specialists, or the Court of Protection.”

  • Case (Treatment and detention). Rooman v Belgium 18052/11 [2019] ECHR 105 — Lack of psychiatric treatment while detained breached Article 3 and Article 5.

  • Case (Treatment and detention). Rooman v Belgium 18052/11 [2017] ECHR 688 — Lack of psychiatric treatment while detained breached Article 3 but not Article 5. (The Grand Chamber subsequently found breaches of both Articles.)

  • Case (DOL authorisation complaint). Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 001 607) [2025] MHLO 12 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman’s summary: “Mrs X complains the Council has failed to assess her sister’s needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised. The Council has delayed in reviewing her sister’s needs and in applying to have the deprivation of her liberty authorised. It also failed to ensure she received a consolidated response to all her concerns. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress it has caused. It also needs to apply to the Court of Protection to have the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised and take action to improve its services.”

Legislation

  • Legislation. Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025 — The changes to the HESC rules relate to (1) making decisions which dispose of reference proceedings without a hearing (informally called paper hearings) under Tribunal rule 35; and (2) setting aside decisions under Tribunal rule 45. The intention of the rule 35 change is to undo the 2024 amendment which accidentally applied extra safeguards for CTO patients (those being requirements that the first and at least alternate decisions thereafter be made at hearings). But an accidental side-effect of the 2025 amendment is to remove those and other safeguards from detained patients. Their safeguards now do not apply if their case either has not previously been considered by the tribunal or was last considered without a hearing (which is the reverse of what must be intended). The lost safeguards are any restrictions on repeated paper hearings (as above), the requirement to be legally represented, and the requirement that the representative state in writing: that the patient does not wish to attend or be represented; that the representative has discussed any reports or other documents provided; and that the patient has capacity to decide. (The requirement that the tribunal be satisfied of patient’s capacity is possibly also part of the disapplied detained-patient safeguards.) The change to rule 45 expressly provides that the set-aside power can be exercised either on the application of a party or on the tribunal’s own initiative.

  • Legislation. Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Commencement No. 7) Regulations 2025 — Brings s21 Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (victim impact statements to mental health tribunals (restricted patients)) into force on 25 June 2025. It applies to to restricted patients with a s37/41 hospital order and restriction order.

Resources

News

  • MHLA panel course now hybrid. The MHLA’s mental health tribunal panel course on 24-25 June 2025 will now be a hybrid event (London and online) and the booking deadline has been moved to 19 June 2025. See MHLA: Panel course (London and online, 24-25 June 2025) for details.

Events

  • Event. Event:MHLA: Panel course (London and online, 24-25 June 2025) — 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’). Originally to be held in London, it will now be held as a hybrid course (London and online). Please book as soon as possible and by 19 June 2025. Cost: £300 (members), £390 (non-members), £270 (group discount). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.

Jobs