Abstract
<p>R (on the application of CS) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Managers of Homerton Hospital (East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust) (Interested Party)</p><p>Queen’s Bench Division, (Administrative Court), Pitchford J., 6 December 2004</p><p>EWHC (Admin) 2958</p><p><em>The decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal under section 72(1) Mental Health Act 1983 not to discharge a patient on section 17 leave from hospital was not unlawful. The link between hospital and treatment may be “gossamer thin” but still a “significant component” to justify renewal of detention</em></p>
Highlights
CS was a patient liable to be detained on leave of absence from hospital
The court, whilst restating that hospital treatment must be “a significant component” of the treatment plan to be lawful under the Mental Health Act 1983, found that, the Responsible Medical Officer’s (RMO) grasp on the patient was “gossamer thin”, it was a “significant component” sufficient to justify continuing detention
As a patient liable to be detained, CS could be recalled to hospital for treatment if she refused or failed to take her medication in the community which introduced an element of compulsion that she accept treatment in the community
Summary
CS was a patient liable to be detained on leave of absence from hospital (leave). She challenged the decision of the Tribunal which had confirmed the lawfulness of her detention following renewal on the grounds that she was no longer receiving hospital treatment which justified continued detention. CS was a patient liable to be detained on leave of absence from hospital (leave).. CS was a patient liable to be detained on leave of absence from hospital (leave).2 She challenged the decision of the Tribunal which had confirmed the lawfulness of her detention following renewal on the grounds that she was no longer receiving hospital treatment which justified continued detention. The court, whilst restating that hospital treatment must be “a significant component” of the treatment plan to be lawful under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act), found that, the Responsible Medical Officer’s (RMO) grasp on the patient was “gossamer thin”, it was a “significant component” sufficient to justify continuing detention. As a patient liable to be detained, CS could be recalled to hospital for treatment if she refused or failed to take her medication in the community which introduced an element of compulsion that she accept treatment in the community
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.
