# Scrambled tribunal decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Mental Health Tribunal\ **Created:** [29 July 2025 10:36 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937 "2025-07-29T10:36:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous70)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 10:36 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/1 "2025-07-29T10:36:19Z")
I have a decision which I am going to appeal as I believe that the MHT have made an error of law. However, part of the decision appears to have been dictated by voice recognition or written by AI in that it is completely scrambled. I could send it back and ask for it to be corrected but it is not really material to the error of law ( as it is just in the recitation of the patient’s history) and I don’t want to waste time doing that. Also I wondered whether I could work it into my appeal in some way? It is quite extreme and reflects badly on the Judge. Any views? ---
**Author:** ![SteveC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@SteveC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/SteveC)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 10:52 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/2 "2025-07-29T10:52:00Z")
It will reflect badly on the whole Tribunal panel as they should have seen and agreed it including correction of any typos. I’m afraid I can’t provide any thoughts on its inclusion in an appeal. ---
**Author:** ![anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous70)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 11:48 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/3 "2025-07-29T11:48:52Z")
Yes-it does-and I am thinking that I definitely will not ask for it to be corrected as it shows a lack of attention to detail which adds to the impression of a slapdash approach to the law. ---
**Author:** ![CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/captainwalker/32/159_2.png) [@CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/CaptainWalker)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 11:49 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/4 "2025-07-29T11:49:27Z")
> [@anonymous70](#): > > I have a decision which I am going to appeal as I believe that the MHT have made an error of law. However, part of the decision appears to have been dictated by voice recognition or written by AI in that it is completely scrambled. I could send it back and ask for it to be corrected but it is not really material to the error of law ( as it is just in the recitation of the patient’s history) and I don’t want to waste time doing that. The following is opinion and not advice (an important distinction in law). 1. No computerised system is autonomous in UK law. 2. I therefore infer that every such error arising and allowed to permeate decision-making is human error. 3. The issue in the captioned situation will turn on whether any error of any nature or degree, is material to determining an error of law. 4. The latter is a legal issue. 5. Not every error is an error of law (not that you said so, or do not know that). 6. If the error(s) were not material, then there may be alternative avenues to resolving the matter e.g. request for clarity and correction. 7. An appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal would normally need to meet one or more of the legal criteria for Judicial Review (no lectures on that today - GIYF] ---
**Author:** ![anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous70)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 13:00 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/5 "2025-07-29T13:00:40Z")
So- the MHT have made errors of law which are completely distinct from the scrambled recitation of the patient’s history ( which is simply a word salad and indecipherable.) My question is not about whether to appeal but about whether I can suggest that nonsensical content in a decision is a distinct error of law and therefore additional ground of appeal. I think probably it is not. ---
**Author:** ![Barry](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@Barry](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Barry)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 13:20 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/6 "2025-07-29T13:20:36Z")
Since it is not material to the error of law which you have identified, I recommend that you leave it out. It is not likely that the FTT’s lack of attention to detail will persuade the UT that it’s understanding of the law on an unrelated issue is wrong. On the contrary it could undermine the strength of your appeal by suggesting that the error of law is on a par with the typographical error. ---
**Author:** ![anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous70)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 16:20 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/7 "2025-07-29T16:20:42Z")
Thank you Barry and I sort of agree , although it is not a mere typo it is a couple of paras of complete gobbledegook. Anyway, I think I will probably not refer to it but not ask for it to be amended before I appeal. ---
**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:** [29 July 2025 16:49 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/8 "2025-07-29T16:49:48Z")
I’d go ahead with the appeal with the gobbledegook still there. It does show a lack of care and might make it harder to understand the tribunal’s reasons – even if you’ve identified an unrelated error of law. In a case I didn’t appeal I asked for something like yours to be amended under the slip rule, and sent the amended version to the patient. The judge in that case was probably very dyslexic and just forgot to get the decision fixed up before sending it. ---
**Author:** ![CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/captainwalker/32/159_2.png) [@CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/CaptainWalker)\ **Post date:** [29 July 2025 18:26 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/9 "2025-07-29T18:26:10Z")
> [@anonymous70](#): > > So- the MHT have made errors of law which are completely distinct from the scrambled recitation of the patient’s history ( which is simply a word salad and indecipherable.) My question is not about whether to appeal but about whether I can suggest that nonsensical content in a decision is a distinct error of law and therefore additional ground of appeal. I think probably it is not. This confirms that the appeal itself is happening regardless of the scrambled text. The question is whether the _scrambled text itself_ can be added as a _separate and distinct_ error of law, making it an _additional_ ground for appeal. You were considering if the “scrambled text” could serve as an _additional_ distinct error of law for appeal, but now lean towards thinking it is **not**. Therefore, the scrambled text is not the _basis_ of your appeal, but rather a peripheral issue you wish to be considered - adding it as a ground, and now likely you won’t. I think **even if it’s not a direct error of law that changes the _legal outcome_ of the case, a “scrambled” part of a FTT judgment can:** - **Highlight issues of the FTT’s credibility and the perceived reliability of their decision-making process.** - **Support an argument about procedural unfairness or a lack of due diligence.** - **Potentially influence the UTT to take a more critical view of the FTT’s other findings or to consider remedies beyond just overturning a specific point of law.** When I go into ‘_War Mode_’ on legal battlegrounds I reach for anything that maximises my chances of winning. **Caution** : I am not everybody and everybody is not me. This is opinion - not advice! 😊 [No liabilities accepted] I apologise for appearing to be ChatGPT or some other AI. ---
**Author:** ![anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous70)\ **Post date:** [13 November 2025 11:27 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/10 "2025-11-13T11:27:34Z")
Just to update - I appealed the decision and did not refer to the scrambled part and was successful in the appeal at FTT ---
**Author:** ![CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/captainwalker/32/159_2.png) [@CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/CaptainWalker)\ **Post date:** [13 November 2025 12:42 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/11 "2025-11-13T12:42:19Z")
You appealed at FTT or UTT? If UTT and if the judgment is in the public domain can you share? ---
**Author:** ![ZacSussex](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/e8c25b/32.png) [@ZacSussex](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/ZacSussex)\ **Post date:** [13 November 2025 13:07 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/12 "2025-11-13T13:07:17Z")
They said FTT so it would’ve been set aside on review under Rule 46. Definitely too speedy for a UKUT appeal. They could request a redacted version of the decision to set aside in the interests of open justice if it’s an interesting case though. ---
**Author:** ![anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@anonymous70](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous70)\ **Post date:** [14 November 2025 13:12 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/scrambled-tribunal-decision/3937/13 "2025-11-14T13:12:20Z")
Yes-I will try and obtain permission to publish. I argued that the reasons were inadequate, for reasons other than the illegible part. The Judge actually granted it on basis that reasons were inadequate but not on the precise grounds which I had argued. I think that the scrambled part probably played a part in the decision even though it has not been specifically mentioned.