# S117 and quashed sentence

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/s117-and-quashed-sentence/4712>\
**Category:** Mental Health Act\
**Tags:** aftercare\
**Created:** [26 November 2025 12:01 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/s117-and-quashed-sentence/4712 "2025-11-26T12:01:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<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:** [26 November 2025 14:00 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/s117-and-quashed-sentence/4712/2 "2025-11-26T14:00:43Z")

</div>

I can see both sides of the argument. They’re probably saying that when the hospital order was quashed the parasitical aftercare duties died with it. But since the patient _was_ “admitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital order made under section 37” and _did_ “cease to be detained and … leave hospital”, I think the question now is the usual [s117](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MHA_1983_s117) question of whether “the person concerned is no longer in need of such services”.

There are similarities with the question here: [Invalid section 3 and S117 aftercare](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/invalid-section-3-and-s117-aftercare/2593).

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/s117-and-quashed-sentence/4712)._