Related to this there seems to be an inconsistency in practice in different local authorities. In some LAs, if an AMHP signs an application but there’s a delay arranging transport and the applicant is not on duty when the transport is available, another AMHP arranges transport for the liable to be detained patient. The LA I now work for sought legal advice and were told that only the applicant can arrange conveyance and so, if the applicant is not available, they must arrange another interview. Is that right? Is there case law or regulation that spells this out?
The Reference Guide states that the person conveying must be the AMHP or someone authorised by the AMHP:
8.66 A duly completed application for admission provides the authority for the applicant, or anyone authorised by the applicant, to take and convey the patient to the hospital named in the application in order for the patient to be admitted and detained there within the time periods described in figures 39 and 40
This concords with S.6(1) which states
(1) An application for the admission of a patient to a hospital under this Part of this Act, duly completed in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, shall be sufficient authority for the applicant, or any person authorised by the applicant
Hi,you should probably ask for further clarity/explanation from your legal advisor(s) if you’re not sure about following the formal advice you have received.
It’s likely this is about ‘delegatus non potest delegare’ essentially ‘a delegate cannot delegate.’