# Revocation of CTO patient and s.21 MHA

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/revocation-of-cto-patient-and-s-21-mha/2089>\
**Category:** Mental Health Act\
**Tags:** cto\
**Created:** [15 December 2023 10:24 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/revocation-of-cto-patient-and-s-21-mha/2089 "2023-12-15T10:24:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anonymous28](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@anonymous28](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous28)\
**Post date:** [15 December 2023 10:24 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/revocation-of-cto-patient-and-s-21-mha/2089/1 "2023-12-15T10:24:07Z")

</div>

Dear all

A CTO patient did not attend appointments to allow RC to examine patient for purpose of extending CTO within the 2 months of section expiry. Two days before the CTO authority was due to lapse a recall notice was completed by RC stating recall was for purpose A and this was served through patients letterbox of last known address. Patient turned up to the hospital named in the recall notice after the day CTO which would have otherwise lapsed - extended under [s.21](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MHA_1983_s21). Patient examined by RC within 72 hour recall period and decided to revoke the CTO. Just checking the [CTO5](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Form_CTO5:_Section_17F(4)_-_revocation_of_community_treatment_order) revocation would just be as valid if the RC completed a [CTO7](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Form_CTO7:_Section_20A_-_community_treatment_order_-_report_extending_the_community_treatment_period) as the patient never actually ceased to be liable to be detained as RC had 7 days to examine and consider the patients case from the date he returned to hospital after being AWOL. Thank you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mickee01](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@mickee01](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/mickee01)\
**Post date:** [15 December 2023 13:17 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/revocation-of-cto-patient-and-s-21-mha/2089/2 "2023-12-15T13:17:26Z")

</div>

Presuming the reasons for not attending were explored

---

<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:** [16 December 2023 22:26 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/revocation-of-cto-patient-and-s-21-mha/2089/3 "2023-12-16T22:26:00Z")

</div>

> [@anonymous28](#):
>
> Just checking the [CTO5](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Form_CTO5:_Section_17F(4)_-_revocation_of_community_treatment_order) revocation would just be as valid if the RC completed a [CTO7](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Form_CTO7:_Section_20A_-_community_treatment_order_-_report_extending_the_community_treatment_period) as the patient never actually ceased to be liable to be detained

I’m not sure I follow this entirely, but it sounds as though the revocation (CTO5) was lawful, and an extension (CTO7) would have been lawful too.

> [@anonymous28](#):
>
> as RC had 7 days to examine and consider the patients case from the date he returned to hospital after being AWOL.

I’ve never thought this through before. I think the CTO was extended by one week beginning on the patient’s return to hospital (s21(2)) but the recall was only extended by 72 hours from the patient’s return (s21(4)).