Do you agree that the proposed change to rule 37 of the HESC Rules, to permit section 2 MHA cases to be listed within 10 days of the date on which the MHT receives the application notice, should be made permanent?
Yes
No
0voters
Your vote will be anonymous!
The consultation also asks “If not, why not?” – though not “If yes, why?” – feel free to answer those questions by replying below.
I think that you are probably right Karen, although in devil’s advocate mode I first wondered why should it matter if a hearing is on the last day of the s.2, assuming that this implies that the detaining authority intend to progress to a s.3 (otherwise surely the patient would be discharged before the Tribunal by the RC?). I guess that the actual harm for patients is therefore simply that the longer the wait for a hearing on a short-term section, the less it really is an effective safeguard against unwarranted or prolonged detention. Simply a case of justice delayed…
Yes I think that is correct. On s2 there will be a high proportion of patients on a first admission and so more likelihood that the statutory criteria for detention are not met than with s3 patients.
There were 13 respondents here (3 in favour, 10 against), and a similar number responded to the Tribunal Procedure Committee: 11 (3 in favour, 8 against)
They decided to go ahead with their proposal anyway. Here is a link to the consultation response, published yesterday, and my summary:
10 days for s2 listing.Tribunal Procedure Committee, ‘Reply from the Tribunal Procedure Committee’ (following consultation on changes to section 2 listing, 19/10/22) — During the coronavirus pandemic the 7-day listing deadline for s2 cases was temporarily extended to 10 days. This consultation proposed making the change permanent. 8 of 11 respondents were against. But the TPC considered it “entirely appropriate” to take into account an earlier, similar consultation in 2020, in which 51 of 60 respondents were in favour. The TPC decided to make the extended 10-day deadline permanent for the following reasons: (1) the great majority of the two consultations taken together were in favour (if the 2020 respondents had changed their views they might have been expected to respond to the 2022 consultation); (2) the 10-day period was useful in 15% of cases during 2021/22; (3) the DCP’s observations (within the 2022 consultation document) carried significant weight; (3) nothing concerning had emerged as a consequence of the temporary arrangements.
