Hello
So we have a patient subject to s37 issued in Jan 2023, subsequently renewed by RC - no issues - until we all came to know very recently that the patient was issued another s37 dated July 2024 for a separate offence - but the order only made its way to the hospital where the patient already is (and was directed to be admitted) yesterday - my understanding is even though we were unaware of the order it still supersedes the order issued in 2023 - but also means the order lapsed in January 2025 unknown to the patient, patients MDT and MHA Office.
I note the July 2024 s37 order named a hospital the patient was not admitted to at the time and it also has address errors in the hospital name the patient was directed to be admitted to in the order - they appear to be minor errors that I guess would not affect the validity of the order which is outside our control anyway.
For now I guess the only way forward is for the patient to go through an assessment for s3 if warranted - is this correct?
Yes, by virtue of s.40(5), the July 2024 order would have ended the Jan 2023 order. You will need a s.3 if further detention is required; potentially s.5(2) in the meantime.
2 Likes
Just thinking about the ānamed hospitalā in the July 2024 order; s.40(5) refers to āWhere a patient is admitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital orderā¦ā and so in the scenario you describe, it is possible that the order was not followed and therefore did not end the January 2023 order. Do you know what actually happened in July 2024?
Hi
The named admitting hospital in the July 2024 order is the same hospital the patient was admitted to under the previous 2023 order (with errors in the postal address) - however it has the wrong address in the order for 2024 - under the defendants details (correct name/demographics of the defendant though) - it names a PICU hospital - the patient wasnāt there at the time - will this make a difference to the legality of the 2024 order?
1 Like
I expect you need quick answers so hereās my instinctive response! I agree with you and Guy about the second one ending the first one, and the approach to take now.
I think you mean the patient had been transferred since the first hospital order, but the second hospital order named the first hospital again (and with errors in the address). In any event, Iād say the patient was āadmitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital orderā. Also, unlike civil applications, hospital orders are treated as lawful until a court decides they arenāt, and I canāt imagine a court deciding this one wasnāt.
You should also write to the patient about the unlawful detention, even though these days there are usually no consequences for that sort of thing.
Thanks - patient is always informed of the issues/errors/ legal status, given an apology, offered IMHA support, and informed of their right to submit a complaint to the Trust and CQC in respect of the factors leading to any period of unlawful detention/treatment.
My concern is the poor communication between agencies, professionals, courts when dealing with such matters and the issuance of the official paperwork reaching the correct hospital in a timely manner.
Is there any court guidance around how this process works - especially with helpful contact details for chasing any court paperwork - thinking of it from a MHA Office perspective - we are normally the last to be informed.
1 Like