Just for info…
My client appealed to MHT when on 48/49 and was placed on 37/41 before the hearing. The MoJ filed a supplementary statement stating that the MHT should decide whether the appeal should proceed and that they did not have a view.
I argued that it should proceed in line with CS v Elysium Healthcare [2021] UKUT 186 (AAC) (Which was about 47/49 but said that if the patient remained restricted the appeal should proceed.) The MHT agreed and heard the appeal.
If patient is on 48/49 and likely to want a tribunal in first six months of 37/41 it is therefore worth appealing before they are sentenced.
2 Likes
Hi Karen
That is interesting. Given the decision to proceed, have you considered this being published to assist other practitioners.
From a personal perspective, I am not at all certain that the decision is correct in law, but hey, what do I know.
Ben
1 Like
As the case law states that the patient being restricted throughout is the key thing I suppose they felt they couldn’t distinguish between 48/49 and 47/48. I thought it was a long shot as there are clear reasons why they could have distinguished them.
I did wonder about requesting permission to publish but the client is quite paranoid so I don’t think he would consent.