MENTAL HEALTH

Headed by partners Richard Charlton, Mental Health Lawyer of the Year in 2004, and Sam Polson, along with senior solicitor Chris Cuddihee, our Mental Health Team has a wealth of experience in dealing with a wide variety of issues.

Based in our Islington and Walworth Road Offices the team can advise and assist with:

• Mental Health Review Tribunals

• Questions of Mental Capacity and the Court of Protection

• Aftercare Entitlement

• Compulsory Treatment

• The Data Protection Act and access to records

• Judicial Review of public bodies

• Complaints

• Criminal Appeals where mental health is an issue

• Prisoners with mental health difficulties

Those with mental health problems represent some of the most vulnerable in our society. We offer a robust and widely experienced team which works closely with our criminal, family, public law and prisoners’ teams. The law applicable to those with mental health problems has undergone a series of important changes in the last few years, especially with the introduction of Human Rights Act 1998, the Capacity Act 2005 and the impending Mental Health Act 2007. Case-law has also seen a number of important developments and the team at Kaim Todner has played a leading role in taking such cases to the higher courts.

Representation

Legal Aid can be available for some of our work, including Mental Health Review Tribunals. The team assist and represents clients at all levels, from attendances at case-conferences and aftercare meetings, through to Mental Health Review Tribunals, the Court of Protection, the High Court, the House of Lords and European Court of Human Rights.

For those cases where Legal Aid is not possible, the team can offer competitive rates

Recent cases include:

R v Chorlton (2007)

That fresh evidence can be allowed to quash a life sentence when an earlier risk assessment was based on a distorted, and incorrect, version of facts arising from a period of mental illness.

R (S) CO/2043/2006

That the Home Office misapplied the law by effectively preventing an MHRT from discharging a patient whose immigration status was in dispute

T(R) v Chief Executive Notts MH NHS Trust, Secretary State for Health (2006) EWHC 800

That a transfer of a highly vulnerable and treatment resistant patient from a specialist unit was irrational and would set his treatment back for years.

R(B) v London Borough Camden & Others (2006)

That a local authority might delay a client’s discharge from hospital because they consistently failed provide accommodation

(R) East London & City MH NHS TRUST v MHRT(2005(EWHC 2329

That a Tribunal used incorrect criteria in directing a patient’s discharge.

R(Robinson) v London Borough of Waltham Forest C0/9360/2005

That a local authority had failed in its aftercare duties to assist and support the discharge of a highly vulnerable patient

W(R) v Medway Primary Care trust CO/835/2005

That a health authority (together with a local authority) failed to assist a discharged patient in accommodation costs.

R(SR) By his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (Defendant) (1) MR (Nearest Relative)(2) LB Hackney (3) City of London MH NHS Trust (Interested Parties) (2005)(EWHC 2361

Acting for the Official Solicitor, that Hospital Managers were irrational to discharge a patient from her section.

Re W CO/835/2004

That the prison authorities should not intervene to resuscitate a prisoner who, although he had a mental disorder, had the capacity to take his own life. [This declaration by the President of the Family Division attracted substantial detention media attention, including an interview on the Today Programme]

R v John Lomey 12^th Oct 2004 (Court of Appeal)

That a Life sentence prisoner, who was now seen to have been mentally unwell at the time of his index offence, might be entitled to a hospital order as an alternative, although this would depend on the facts and whether the prisoner was on licence in the community.

R v Lewis-Joseph (Delroy) (2004) EWCA Crim 202

That fresh evidence could show both a Defendant was too unwell to have participated in earlier criminal proceedings and that a hospital order was more appropriate than a sentence of Life imprisonment.

R v Nafei (2004) EWCA Crim 3238

That a Court had a discretion not to grant a hospital order, although the defendant was suffering from a recognised and treatable mental illness, particularly when such an illness was not linked with the index offence.

R (IR) v Shetty, Secretary State of Home Department (2003) EWHC 3022

That a Home Secretary could act irrationally in sending a prisoner suffering from a mental illness back to prison

Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Ratra (2003) EWHC 493

That a patient suffering from various mental disorders could be a vexatious litigant.

R(X) v MHRT 2003 EWHC 1272

That a Tribunal should only rarely adjourn of its own motion after all the evidence has been taken, and if this happens it must be to do justice to a case in reaching the correct decision

R(A) v Harrow Crown Court, Secretary state for Health, W London MH NHS Trust 2003 EWHC 2020

That a Judge incorrectly applied the law in granting a hospital order.

KB & Others v MHRT CO/2363/2002

That the Mental Health Review Tribunal was in breach of Article 5(4) European Convention on Human Rights in substantially delaying hearings for improper administrative reasons and a lack of resources.

R(On the Application of Warren) v MHRT North & East Region (2002) EWHC Admin 811

That an error made by an MHRT as to a patient’s legal status does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings.

R(P) v Barking Youth Court CO/4862/2001

That a Youth Court applied the incorrect procedure when approaching a defendant who was mentally unfit to take part in proceedings. [The procedure has been changed following this case]

Williams v Williams (2001) EWCA Civ470

That a Court should consider if an interim Hospital Order was more appropriate than a term of imprisonment for contempt of court.

R(On the Application of Wooder) v Feggetter & the Mental Health Act Commission CO/2000/3655

That the Claimant was entitled to reasons when a Second Opinion Doctor appointed by the Mental Health Act Commission authorised compulsory treatment [ This case led to the a substantial review by the Commission of its documentation for patients in this position]

R v Antoine (House of Lords) 4^th April 2000

That a defendant who was unfit to be tried should not be found to have done the specific offence act of murder in a flawed process in which he was unable to participate due to his mental illness.

R v MHRT (London & NE Region) ex p T 24^th Feb 2000

That a Tribunal had to give proper reasons for its decision not to discharge a patient.

R v Paul Martin 6^th November 1998

That there needs to be a proportionate relationship between the index offence and the history of offending, together with a proper risk assessment, before a s41 restriction order is made under the Mental Health Act.

Email: solicitors@kaimtodner.com

Since 8th May 2006 Kaim Todner LLP is now a Limited Liability Partnership and is regulated by the Law Society.

Registered in England and Wales. Registered number OC3188984