On this topic, does it sound right that a patient absconds from a s. 37/41 is put in the health wing of a prison for 2 months, then transferred to a different hospital under a different section 47/49 while awaiting court for "absconding from lawful custody) and benefits drop from circa £100 pw to circa £23 a week./ Meanwhile the judge throws out the charge and doesn’t understand why it was ever brought in front of them. Then a trial where the patient wasn’t fit to plead 7 years ago is reactivated (as patient considered fit to plead (and then not and then again and then not) and patient remains on s. 47/49 in hospital for over a year now.
The chronology is really difficult to follow. But this part is interesting. For ages, convicted prisoners in hospital on s47/49 (and s45A) haven’t received welfare benefits (see SS v UK 40356/10 [2011] ECHR 107). Two things make your patient potentially different: (1) he might have been under s48/49 while on remand, rather than s47/49 as stated above; (2) he was under s37/41 all along and met the criteria for detention under that section while in hospital.
After I raised a complaint about this the patient was given a back-dated reimbursement of his benefits for 37/41. The absconsion charge was dropped by the judge who said it should never have come to court.
1 Like
That would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.
Tips from lawyers: Always get the right expert to say whatever you want! Sorry - it happens.
I’m not sure which benefits but it sounds reasonable because when held in an ‘institution’ lots of needs are taken care of but…but…
- The drop to £23 per week suggests the individual was still considered a hospital patient, not a prisoner, during the 2 months in the health wing. This might indicate a misclassification or delay in updating their status.
- The health wing of a prison is not equivalent to a hospital, and the individual’s mental health needs might not have been adequately met during this time.