Abstract
<p>R v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames ex parte Watson, R v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council ex parte Armstrong, R v Manchester City Council ex parte Stennett, R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte Cobham </p><p>Court of Appeal (27th July 2000)3 CCLR 276</p>
Highlights
In addition to the main issue of charging for services under s.117, two subsidiary issues were raised
The Respondents maintained that there would be a ‘perverse incentive’ created if aftercare services under s.117 were free of charge, as people would take action to ensure that they were detained under the longer treatment provisions of the Mental Health Act in order to avail themselves of free services
In respect of the subsidiary issues, the Respondent local authorities argued that a patient who was on leave of absence was still ‘liable to be detained’ and was excluded from the scope of s.117, as s.117 refers to patients who ‘cease to be detained’
Summary
In addition to the main issue of charging for services under s.117, two subsidiary issues were raised. The Respondent local authorities argued that s.117 was not a free standing service provision duty.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
