This is a s117 MHA Part III question.
A person is ordinarily resident in Area A, and is convicted of a crime for which they receive a custodial sentence.
The person is initially imprisoned in Area B, then transferred to another prison in Area C
While serving their sentence in Area C prison, they are transferred to hospital on MHA s47.
Before the end of their sentence they are absolutely discharged from hospital to approved premises on licence, also in Area C.
Does Area C hold s117 responsibility, on the grounds that they were discharged there, or on the grounds that they were imprisoned there at the time of their s47 transfer.
Or does Area A hold responsibility, on the grounds that they were ordinarily resident there prior to their incarceration, and that was the last place they chose to live in a settled manner?
Or something else?
This is a s117 MHA Part III question.
I work in Forensics and we get this a lot-- responsible ICB is where the last Gp was at time of offence so presumably area A in your scenario, and LA responsibility where he was last ordinarly resident at the time of the offenc so again area A.
I work in secure care, all this gets checked by NHSE comissioners to determine who goes out to do the gatekeeping assessment in terms of Health responsibility. As SWs we then identify the S117 LA responsibitlty and invite them in discharge planning/ care pathway etc. Rarely get any disputes about S117 etc.
I attend mtgs with SW managers and this seems approach to be pretty uncontroversial. I’d be interested if any of the legal eagles on here have different views…
This is interesting and emphasises once again, what a poorly formed piece of legislation we work with. I think the idea of the responsible authority being based on the last GP is fine for health funding but doesn’t cut it for LA SSD. If it works then I wouldn’t rock the boat but this might be challengeable by a canny LA.
The GP criterion is for determining ICB responsibility, not local authority responsibility.
The local authority responsibility is based on ordinary residence immediately before detention (under the MHA). I’ve now clarified that the position is set out in the Care and Support statutory guidance at chapter 17.
The latest Who Pays guidance (June 2022) intends to clarify the position in relation to ICBs, as described by Ian above (I think!)
But there are slightly different rules for people already detained on 1st July 2022, or receiving aftercare from a previous detention before that date,
I’m not even going to attempt to clarify the changes.
My view is Area +A’.
It is fairly common for prisoners during the time they are serving a sentence to be moved aound the prison estate.
So if the person was living in area A at the time the court sentenced them and they had permanent residency at that time ncy this would still remain their place of ordinary residence. Whilst residing as guests of his majesty they have no rights of tenure such that when their sentence os completed they would not be required to be housed by the Local Authority by the prison ithe person is released from. Unless particular circumstances surrounding the offences, victim(s safety require the protection of other persons etc apply!
Similar to if you were to go an extended vacation. Staying at various hotells across the country for periods of time.if you were to become unwell snd admitted to a psychiatric hospital under a treatment section I am assuming the place you where normally domiciled at would be responsible for your mental health on care and treatment. If you did not require a secure forensic mental health hospital you would likely be transferred back to that areas psychiatric hospital for continued treatment, discharge.
A 47 is for treatment and is appliivable to o persons sentenced to serve s tocustodial sentence by the courts. If the the criminal justice system requires the NHs to provide a facility for a person’s mental health treatment the same S117 rules and regulations apply equivalent to a section 3.
Then again. To quite Winnie the Pooh ,“It’s not the leaves that ste coming that bothers me, but the leaves that ate going,…,.”
It sounds like it boils down to whether s.117(3)(a) is satisfied (Area A), and if not responsibility would fall to Area C under s.117(3)(c).
For s.117(3)(a) it would depend whether the person was OR “immediately before being detained”. Ordinary meaning of those words would suggest the patient was not OR in Area A because they had served a custodial in two prisons in the meantime.
However, my understanding of the ratios in Hertfordshire (p.50 & 51) & Worcestershire (p.56-57 and 76) is that periods of imprisonment are “discounted” the same way periods of detention under the MHA are discounted because there’s no “voluntary” aspect.
I would therefore say Area A based on those principles. However I can see the thrust in an argument that they were not OR anywhere “immediately” before detention (under the MHA). In my eyes it depends on the courts interpretation of OR whilst someone is in prison - whether a persons OR continues in the initial area during imprisonment or whether they are only merely “resident” in prison at that time and lack any form of OR. This would also depend on the facts of the case and how long any term of imprisonment is.