We have just had a s23 sent to us nearly an hour before the time it was said to have been dated.
What do we all think about that?
Wasn’t there a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that there is no power for a RC to defer a discharge? (Unlike a CTO for example). I think the previous thread related to the Tribunal closing the case before the date/time of the purported deferred discharge.
I suppose it leaves scope for the RC to try and “revoke” the discharge, which again I don’t agree they have the power to do.
I think this is the most recent topic here: Can RCs defer s23 discharge to a future date/time?. We thought the RC couldn’t defer discharge, but were undecided about effect of a post-dated form (whether it caused immediate discharge or had no effect at all).
Thank you Jonathan - I had completely forgotten that I had already posted about this!
On the previous occasion it was more explicitly intended to take effect on a different day . In this case it is not possible to tell when it was actually signed and dated but this was certainly before the time stated on the face of the form.
About a year ago one of my clients was “mistakenly discharged” by the RC who tried to place them onto a CTO and thought they had to s23 first (a consultant psychiatrist too - I wonder if they had mixed-up with guardianship..?). The form was sent to me by mistake by a newer MHAA. When I queried, the more senior MHAA suggested this would be voided and the patient placed onto a CTO shortly.
I made representations and got an email back a couple hours later saying that they had “decided” not to void the s23 as the form had already been sent to HMCTS.
Obviously wrong but my follow-up email was ignored. Of course.
Call me a pessimist but I’m sure the majority of “shady” practices never make their way to the patient’s (or their lawyer’s) eyes, so it causes me great concern. JB v Elysium, anyone?