# Lawfulness of earlier first statutory referrals by the MOJ (and the relevance of the change in status cases) **URL:** \ **Category:** Mental Health Tribunal\ **Tags:** referral, status-change\ **Created:** [6 September 2025 20:07 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/lawfulness-of-earlier-first-statutory-referrals-by-the-moj-and-the-relevance-of-the-change-in-status-cases/4181 "2025-09-06T20:07:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![ZacSussex](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/e8c25b/32.png) [@ZacSussex](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/ZacSussex)\ **Post date:** [7 September 2025 15:28 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/lawfulness-of-earlier-first-statutory-referrals-by-the-moj-and-the-relevance-of-the-change-in-status-cases/4181/4 "2025-09-07T15:28:52Z")
I think a large part of the decision in CS (although I may be misremembering) was because the custodial sentence was replaced by a hospital order, so it took effect as if the hospital order was originally imposed when the custodial sentence was. I recall a point being that the patient would be disadvantaged if they were unable to pursue their application because they were successful in their appeal to the CrCoA. There’s a clear semantic difference between: a) P applying whilst on a s.47/49 or s.48/49, but then being sentenced to a s.37/41 (judicial oversight of the crown court breaking the chain); and b) P applying whilst on a s.47/49, but their custodial sentence being retroactively replaced by the Court of Appeal (no judicial oversight about whether the patient should _presently_ be under s.37/41). Recognising I’m perhaps commenting on what I think the law should be than what it is, but in my eyes judicial oversight appears determinative (if we ignore _AC_). --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/lawfulness-of-earlier-first-statutory-referrals-by-the-moj-and-the-relevance-of-the-change-in-status-cases/4181)._