# MHT pre-judging the case before the Tribunal

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/mht-pre-judging-the-case-before-the-tribunal/762>\
**Category:** Mental Health Tribunal\
**Created:** [8 February 2022 16:29 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/mht-pre-judging-the-case-before-the-tribunal/762 "2022-02-08T16:29:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![helen](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/a88e57/32.png) [@helen](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/helen)\
**Post date:** [8 February 2022 16:29 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/mht-pre-judging-the-case-before-the-tribunal/762/1 "2022-02-08T16:29:55Z")

</div>

Hi, does anyone remember a case where the Tribunal doctor (following a PHE) expressed a firm view of no-discharge _prior_ to the Tribunal taking place. I recall that there was a successful challenge that confirmed that whilst a preliminary view may be made, the statement of fact was an error in law. I’d love the case references if anyone knows?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nickwoo](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/ccd318/32.png) [@Nickwoo](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Nickwoo)\
**Post date:** [8 February 2022 17:22 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/mht-pre-judging-the-case-before-the-tribunal/762/2 "2022-02-08T17:22:00Z")

</div>

There’s this:  
[Bernard v SW London and St George’s MH NHS Trust [2013] UKUT 58 (AAC), [2013] MHLO 26 - Mental Health Law Online](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Bernard_v_SW_London_and_St_George%27s_MH_NHS_Trust_(2013)_UKUT_58_(AAC),_(2013)_MHLO_26)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SocialWorkerGary](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/socialworkergary/32/296_2.png) [@SocialWorkerGary](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/SocialWorkerGary)\
**Post date:** [8 February 2022 18:42 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/mht-pre-judging-the-case-before-the-tribunal/762/3 "2022-02-08T18:42:46Z")

</div>

I was going to add the Bernard v SW London and St George’s MH NHS Trust 2013 Upper Tribunal decision. For the whole tribunal you have [RN v Curo Care [2011] UKUT 263](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/RN_v_Curo_Care_(2011)_UKUT_263_(AAC)) too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/jonathan/32/88_2.png) [@Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Jonathan)\
**Post date:** [9 February 2022 11:53 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/mht-pre-judging-the-case-before-the-tribunal/762/4 "2022-02-09T11:53:27Z")

</div>

I can’t think of any successful challenges, though it was a bit surprising that the patient in _Bernard_ lost (as the medical member had stated “I have no issues with the nature; it is chronic, relapsing, etcetera”).

Anyway, there are a couple of older cases. In [R (S) v MHRT [2002] EWHC 2522 (Admin)](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(S)_v_MHRT_(2002)_EWHC_2522_(Admin)) the patient didn’t want a PHE at all. The judge concluded that “[i]f an otherwise impartial and independent member of a tribunal has a preconceived concluded opinion, or if he expresses himself in such a way as to give rise to reasonable apprehension that he has a preconceived concluded opinion, he lacks the necessary impartiality, but not otherwise.” That was cited in [R (RD) v MHRT [2007] EWHC 781 (Admin)](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(RD)_v_MHRT_(2007)_EWHC_781_(Admin)), where the judge decided that communication by the medical member of a “very preliminary” view was lawful, even though it went to detainability and not merely to mental condition.