May 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 2471 categorised cases

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

Cases

  • Case (Contempt of court sentencing). Derbyshire County Council v Grundy [2025] EWCOP 2 (T1) — 28 days’ immediate imprisonment to run concurrently with the activation of a 28-day suspended sentence.

  • Case (Aftercare complaint). Staffordshire County Council (24 021 993) [2025] MHLO 11 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman’s summary: “We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board. She says they ignored her views when it moved her brother, Mr Y, to a care home, which cannot meet his mental health needs. The matter has and still is being considered by the Court of Protection. The law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has started.”

  • Case (Complaint about inaccurate information). London Borough of Wandsworth (24 013 072) [2025] MHLO 10 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman’s summary: “Ms B complained the Council recorded inaccurate information about her late brother, Mr C, when he was assessed under the Mental Health Act. Ms B also complained the Council shared this incorrect information with her, meaning she was not aware of the reasons he was admitted to hospital. Ms B said this caused her and Mr C’s family great distress and meant Mr C did not get the care and treatment he needed. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council because it is unlikely we could add to the response she has already received from the Council.”

  • Case (Life and death). University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v PK [2025] EWCOP 17 (T3) — The trust sought a declaration that was is not in the patient’s best interests to receive CANH, without which he would have died in a matter of days or weeks, but the judge decided that the treatment remained in his best interests.

  • Case (Discharge of rule 11(7)(b) appointments). KH v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKUT 128 (AAC) — (1) In KH’s case the representative asked for the rule 11(7)(b) appointment to be discharged on the basis that the patient had capacity and objected. The tribunal’s reasons for refusing were inadequate: it was not clear that the RC or the tribunal had applied the appropriate capacity test; 2. using the words “As such…” following a recitation of the conflicting evidence on capacity was insufficient in the absence of any analysis or evaluation; no reasons were given on best interests; no thought was given to the potential for causing distress by imposing an unwanted representative; there was no indication that the matter was kept under review. The decision had the unintended effect of reducing the effective participation of the patient, as he could not cross-examine and it appeared that neither did the representative. (2) In AH’s case the tribunal did discharge the appointment, on the basis of objection and distress, but its reasons were inadequate because it failed to consider whether the patient might regain capacity with support and whether an adjournment might achieve greater participation. An adjournment cannot be used to see whether improvement will increase chances of discharge, but can be to facilitate ability to participate meaningfully. (3) In each case it could not be said with confidence that the outcome would otherwise have been the same, so the error was material and the appeal allowed.

  • Case (PB release set aside). Re Griffiths [2023] PBSA 24 — The Parole Board had directed the release of a s47/49 patient. The Secretary of State applied for the decision to be set aside, and was successful on the basis of new information which demonstrated a change in circumstances since the direction for release.

  • Case (Prosecution of independent hospital). R v Cygnet Health Care Limited [2023] MHLO 6 — Cygnet were fined £1,530,000, and ordered to pay £79,773.59 costs and £180 victim surcharge, after pleading guilty to failing to provide safe care and treatment contrary to regulations 12 and 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 at Cygnet Hospital Ealing. A patient had been able to kill herself while on the ward despite the hospital having been aware of her attempts to harm herself in an almost identical way four months earlier.

  • Case (Non-treatment of diabetes under MHA). Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MC [2025] EWHC 920 (Fam) — The trust sought a declaration under the inherent jurisdiction that it would be lawful not to treat a s37/41 patient in Rampton for diabetes even if that led to his physical decline and premature death. The High Court decided that: (1) the refusal to engage with the treatment plan, and the resultant end-stage complications of diabetes, were manifestations of the patient’s severe personality disorder, despite his capacity to make the unwise decisions, so treatment for diabetes would be medical treatment for mental disorder within the meaning of s63 MHA 1983; (2) it would be lawful not to impose treatment as the restraint required would raise blood pressure and risk serious complications; (3) any future urgent treatment immediately necessary to save life would have to be considered separately by the clinicians at the time.

  • Case (Local authority consent to child’s DOL). J v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2025] EWCA Civ 478 — A local authority cannot give valid consent to confinement so as to remove a case from Article 5.

  • Case (Employment status of associate hospital managers). Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust v Moon [2024] EAT 4 — Summary from beginning of judgment: “The [Employment] Tribunal had made no error of law in concluding that the claimant, who had been appointed as an Associate Hospital Manager, namely a person authorised by the board of the respondent NHS trust under section 23(6) of the Mental Health Act 1983, had been a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and employed under a contract personally to do work, as defined by section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, such that it had jurisdiction to consider her substantive claims.”

Legislation

Resources

  • Prison transfer delays. HMPPS and NHSE, ‘12 month progress update following HMIP: The long wait’ (May 2025) — “In April 2024, we set out improvement activities and planned activities against each of the thematic review’s key concerns (included in middle column in the table below). Key updates on progress as of March 2025, are reflected in the right-most column of the table below: …”

  • Prison transfer action plan. HMPPS and NHSE, ‘A joint response to HMIP: The long wait’ (April 2024) — “HMPPS and NHSE action plan in response to the HMIP thematic review of delays in the transfer of mentally unwell prisoners.”

  • Prison transfer delays. HM Inspectorate of Prisons, ‘The long wait: A thematic review of delays in the transfer of mentally unwell prisoners’ (February 2024) — “This thematic review scrutinises access to mental health care in prisons. In 2022–23, we noted delays in mental health transfers in over three-quarters of our prison inspection reports.”

  • Mental capacity law newsletter. 39 Essex Chambers, ‘Mental Capacity Report’ (issue 150, May 2025) — “Highlights this month include: (1) In the Health, Welfare and Deprivation of Liberty Report: new and updated guidance notes; (2) In the Practice and Procedure Report: naming clinicians (and other professionals), and cross-border deprivation of liberty; (3) In the Mental Health Matters Report: Section 63 MHA 1983 and diabetes, and the Mental Health Bill progresses to the Commons; (4) In the Children’s Capacity Report: the Court of Appeal explains why local authorities cannot consent to the confinement of children in their care; (5) In the Wider Context Report: the other party’s interest in litigation capacity, how far landlords are supposed to go in hoarding cases, and a new Convention on the rights of older adults on the cards? (6) In the Scotland Report: AWI reform update and cross-border deprivation of liberty – Scottish reflections what is appealable in the AWI context.”

  • Contract management guidance. Legal Aid Agency, ‘Contract management: mental health guidance’ (v5, 1 September 2024) — The version history states that the changes made since v4 (20 March 2023) are: “Amended to include a new provision under alternative arrangements. Designated Accredited Representatives has been removed as a provision from the mental health specification. Reference to advocacy before the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) has been added.”