My client is on a CTO. Is it enough to review the CTO papers, or do I also need to review the section 3 papers?
1 Like
Scrutinise both
1 Like
Yes. Just to expand on Michael’s answer.
A key reason you’re checking section papers is to ensure they’re validly/lawfully made. As the Section 3 is the underlying section, if it’s invalid/unlawful then the CTO would be illegitimate too. That would be missed unless all previous section & renewal paperwork is considered.
See - Page 24 of the Peer Review Guidance.
4 Likes
I would strongly suggest that you understand the state of your client and what precipitated Seciton 3, and what has changed, and where they are now
See, for example:
1 Like
Review everything with a fine-toothed comb.
The CTO is afforded as a consequence of the Section 3. Therefore the original grounds for detention needs to be correct according to law. Apparently, this is called ‘pedantic’ or ‘academic’ if you’re a psychiatrist, but not if you’re a lawyer.
I am not afforded the ability to disclose dodgy stuff happening with detentions across this land, especially post-COVID. This is mainly because I have not won a Euromillions Jackpot, and if I do you’re guaranteed the gates of hell will open on ‘modern day’ psychiatry.
At intermittent intervals I do ‘scrutiny’ of detention papers. In a significant minority I find ‘strange things’. I make comments on those. But in the last 20-odd years I’ve never heard anything more - which leads me to infer that a) nobody cares b) nobody will do anything. So, the ‘business’ continues as usual.
If you’re a lawyer, hold this profession of ‘so-called’ psychiatry to account. Lord Woolf said that the legal profession will be less deferential to the medical profession. You must live that. Our profession needs to be brought to order by the scuff of the neck. Self-regulation has failed but not everybody believes that.
1 Like