For what it’s worth (not much), perhaps it’s also conceivable the s37/41 could have beeb replaced by a s35 as a result of a new trial process beginning after a successful appeal against conviction, or where the s37/41 was on the grounds of insanity/unfitness to plead.
The s35 wouldn’t have been the cause of the s37/41 ending, but the effect would have been the same.
Neither seems very likely, but odd things happen.
It seems we will never know.
Many thanks Richard for not joining in the ad hominem. I am grateful for your mature and deeper thoughts. I said at the outset that I was very limited in information due to circumstances beyond my control.
It seems to me that - avoiding all distractions - the core issue is whether a Part 2 section can remain in force when directions of a court on a criminal matter are received.
I am of course aware that some are occupied by sequence and legalities, on the path to two juxtaposed issues.
I am thankful also to those who took the time to share their referenced views, even if I did not agree with them.
If we all agree then there is less to discover. The process of learning is often by discovery in mental health law and how it interfaces with other parts of the law.
It’s fascinating. Let’s continue to have meaningful and reasoned differences of perspective on our journeys. I think we can build each other in that way.