When a patient on s3 is detained in prison they are treated as if AWOL but we can’t find anything specific about what happens to their outstanding tribunal application. With patients who are AWOL the tribunal is usually adjourned sine die. However, we were wondering whether it could actually proceed if the rep had instructions in cases of AWOL or imprisonment.
I would have thought that the RC would have discharged the patient from Section and thus any concern he was AWOL would be dealt with as well as the hearing.
If the patient wants to be discharged from s3 then you could either ask the RC to discharge them given that they are detained elsewhere, or if the RC refuses, ask for a change of venue and have the FtT hearing in prison (either F2F or CVP)
Not quite an answer to your question but if transfer under s48 is not felt to be appropriate, why is the s3 still felt to be necessary?
In my view there is no reason why a Tribunal couldn’t take place in prison, particularly if it is via CVP but again I have no basis for this. It is also the case that you could proceed in the patient’s absence if you have instructions to do so as Rule 39 would arguably be satisfied.
I only know the natural meaning of words on the page. I do not know what you mean outside of that.
Section 3 is not applicable as a means of detaining anyone in prison as far as I am aware.
Perhaps the situation is:
- ‘A patient detained under s3 in a hospital, whilst on s17 leave, is arrested and detained in prison…’
Or even:
- ‘A patient subject to s3 whilst in hospital is physically transferred to prison (e.g., on remand or sentence) before their tribunal hearing…’
Section 13 of the Prison Act 1952 in essence decides who has custody when a person is detained in prison. Prison is part of the criminal justice system, a far as I am aware. It would seem ridiculous to assume that the Section 3 remains in force, when someone who was previously on Section 3 to was then detained in prison. But strange things happen in English law.
And then - what happens if such an individual is then whimsically released from prison - does the Section 3 just kick in again?
Or what if the person’s mental health deteriorates further shortly following imprisonment - what could possibly be the utility of a supposedly existent S3? To take them back to hospital under said S3? I think not! Say hello to S47 and S48 (with restriction orders). And then would a S47 or 48 be co-applied to a supposedly ‘existent’ Section 3? I think not - but I am NOBODY. So ignore.
As for the Tribunal: common sense - that rare commodity these days - might dictate that someone instantaneously informs the Tribunal of the circumstances and seek their directions. If not a Tribunal judge would be supported by me in growling at somebody - if a Tribunal sat for such a ‘contest o detention’.
Thank you all for your replies.
I should have been a bit more explicit but this was indeed someone subject to s3 who was then remanded in custody. S22 MHA applies here and the patient is treated as if they were AWOL . This means that it does kick in again if he were to be released before the end of six months. After 6 months the section expires.
Thankfully , in this case , the s3 was discharged by way of s23 but if it had not been I suppose that the patient may have wished to proceed with his tribunal in order to argue that the s3 was unnecessary. I can’t see anything which would prevent him doing this.