I’ve come across a situation where a client was conditionally discharged from a s37/41 a few months ago, and the panel decided not to impose a condition of an exclusion zone. He has since received a letter from the MOJ adding a condition of an exclusion zone. He is not eligible to apply for a tribunal during the first 12 months but would like to challenge this condition. Can someone please offer some advice on how to proceed? Would a letter to the MOJ asking them to reconsider the condition based on the Tribunal’s decision not to impose such a condition be the best way forward?
He could try, but conditions can be added or varied by the secretary of state (s.73(4)(b) and (5)) and there is no scope within the Act for challenging conditions.
1 Like
Thank you Guy.
I agree with Guy. Also, you could look into judicial review proceedings, but unless the facts are unusual I think you’d have an uphill struggle. You might argue that the decision to impose the condition was irrational in the face of the tribunal’s incontrovertible reasons, or even (a bit more left-field maybe) that the “new information” test for re-detention (from R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 58) should be applied to changes of conditions in the same way as it was applied to recall (in R (IT) v SSJ [2008] EWHC 1707 (Admin)).