Hello
So section 2 lapsed midnight on the 17/08/2025 - the AMHP team was given the incorrect date of section expiry by ward staff.
Doctor then applied 5(2) at 1am on the 18/08/2025 and furnished it by hand to an RMN who noted the date and time it was hand delivered to her in Part 2 but did not sign the form - is this 5(2) valid?. For information the RMN completed a H3 instead.
Any way - a second 5(2) was then applied because hospital staff thought the first was invalid - part 1 and part 2 fully completed/signed on the 19/08/2025 @ 17:12.
Section 3 application completed on the 20/08/2025 @ 3pm. The AMHP made a reference on the AMHP application that the s5(2) was due to expire soon (not sure which 5(2) she is referring to - 1st 5(2) had nearly 10 hours left to run and second 5(2) had nearly 2 full days to run) and therefore there would be unreasonable delay to ascertain who the NR was and then consult with them due to complex family dynamics (all detailed in the AMHP report).
Fully aware the the application of the 5(2)s above are bad practice/subject to legal challenge.
Is the 1st 5(2) valid on the basis of the doctor signing/dating, timing and furnishing the form by hand delivering it etc. even though the RMN did not sign it in part 2?
Is the AMHP application lawful with reference to the 5(2) expiring soon when it wasn’t/not having enough time to ascertain/consult the NR valid?
Thanks for your thoughts/comments in advance.
I think it’s less “bad practice” and more “explicitly unlawful” as per s.5(6), but to get on to your question…
In GP v Derby City Council [2012], the AMHP had called the NR several times with no answer. They made the application at 4:30pm, but the patient’s Section 2 didn’t expire until midnight (~10 hours). The High Court found that there was plenty of time for the AMHP to drive to the NRs house (around 30 minutes away) to do a consultation. Without knowing a lot more information, I couldn’t answer whether it was lawful not to consult - but GP demonstrates the “heavy duty” [36] to comply with the S.11 requirements.
Re Pt 2 of the H1 Form - I have less experience with these, but I don’t think it would invalidate the section if it’s not filled in. R.3 of the relevant Regulations states -
(5) Any report made under subsection (2) of section 5 (detention of patient already in hospital for 72 hours) shall be served by—
(a) delivery of the report to an officer of the managers of the hospital authorised by those managers to receive it, or
(b) delivering it using an internal mail system operated by the managers upon whom it is to be served, if those managers agree.
I think it would be the act of delivering it rather than the need to explicitly sign the Part 2, but I’m happy to be corrected on that count.
1 Like
Zac thanks for your response.
With regards to the AMHP application the AMHP stated on their AMHP application that statement (a) I have been unable to ascertain who is this patient’s nearest relative within the meaning of the Act - applied.
The rationale for this is clearly explained in the AMHP report.
But the AMHP then went on to unnecessarily state in the opinion box that applies to statement (c) I understand that … is the NR… but in my opinion it is not reasonably practicable/would involve unreasonable delay to consult that person before making this application, because…
It is in the opinion box that she made reference to the 5(2) running out - this statement was not needed because she ticked (a).
Apologies I should have made this clear. So in light of the above information is the AMHP application safe with that reference to the 5(2) in opinion box related to statement (c) when she ticked statement (a)?