scholarly journals What happens to patients discharged by Mental Health Review Tribunals?

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 337-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Wilkinson ◽  
Michael Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Hospital ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Hospitals ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Health Review

Under the Mental Health Act (1983) Mental Hospital Review Tribunals act as a safeguard against unwarranted detention of patients in psychiatric hospitals. Detention, other than in special hospitals, is most commonly under section 2 (assessment order) or section 3 (treatment order) of the 1983 Act. Patients thus detained have the right to appeal to a Review Tribunal, which has the power to order their discharge.

scholarly journals A new appraisal of Mental Health Review Tribunals

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 299-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Grounds
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Home Office ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Prime Function ◽  
Health Review

Mental Health Review Tribunals were introduced in the Mental Health Act (1959) to safeguard psychiatric patients against unjustified detention in hospital. The powers of tribunals form “an important part of the fabric of civil liberties” (Wood, 1974). However, in exercising their prime function of preventing unjust detention, tribunals in practice also have to take into account patients' clinical needs and the protection of the public. Further weight was added to this complex burden of decision making following a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights in 1981 which upheld the right of all detained patients to a periodic judicial review of their detention. As a result of this judgement the Mental Health Act (1983) extended tribunal powers to include the release of offender patients sentenced by Crown courts and given hospital orders with restrictions on discharge. Such individuals may have been convicted of grave criminal offences, and their discharge or transfer from hospital would otherwise require the consent of the Home Office.

Jurisprudential Aspects of the ‘Right’ to Retake Absconders from Mental Hospitals in England and Wales

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-230
Author(s):  
Benjamin Andoh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Mental Hospital ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Hospitals ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Statutory Authority ◽  
The Right

Statutory authority for retaking absconders from mental hospitals has existed ever since county asylums (the forerunners of mental hospitals) were first built in the nineteenth century. Today under the Mental Health Act, 1983 that ‘right’ can be exercised by the police, mental hospital staff, approved social workers, etc. This article looks at jurisprudential aspects of that ‘right’. It points out that ‘right’ actually means ‘power’ (not ‘privilege’, ‘claim’ or ‘immunity’). In addition it argues that the Mental Health Act, 1983 does only confer a power (rather than impose a duty) to retake absconders from mental hospitals and that there should not be statutory or other imposition of such a duty.

Detention of ‘Psychopathic Disorder’ Patients in Special Hospitals Critical Issues

1987 ◽  
Vol 151 (4) ◽  
pp. 474-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Grounds
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Psychological Change ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Hospitals ◽  
Reduced Risk ◽  
Psychopathic Disorder

The detention of offenders in the legal category ‘psychopathic disorder’ in special hospitals for treatment raises a number of critical issues. There are doubts about the nature of the disorder; what constitutes treatment; who is ‘treatable’; the effectiveness of treatment; and whether evidence of psychological change implies reduced risk of reoffending. In view of these uncertainties, it is argued that indeterminate hospital orders may provide an unrealistic and unjust legal framework for treating ‘psychopaths' in special hospitals, and the use of powers under the Mental Health Act to transfer such patients to hospital during the course of prison sentences is a more appropriate alternative. This provision could be used more frequently, subject to improved safeguards of the right of release at the expiry of sentence.

The Operation of the Mental Health Act, 1983 (NSW)

1986 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Errington
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Health Review

The Mental Health Act, 1983, and its associated legislation, effects an extensive reorganisation of the law relating to mental health in New South Wales. This paper seeks to explain the operation of the Act from the point of view of medical practitioners, for the most part medical officers and psychiatrists employed in psychiatric hospitals. Reference is also made to the rights of patients, medical and surgical treatment of patients, the property of patients and the operation of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

The Function of Mental Health Review Tribunals under the Mental Health Act 1983

1986 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 291-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Stephen Mawson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Periodic Review ◽  
British Government ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
European Court ◽  
Case Files ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Special Hospitals ◽  
Health Review

In November 1981 the European Court of Human Rights declared that the continued detention of a person on the grounds of mental ill-health must be subject to periodic review by a court capable of ordering his discharge, even if the initial reason to commit issued from criminal proceedings. As a result, the British Government was compelled to remove the exclusive right of the Home Secretary to discharge restricted patients by extending this power to mental health review tribunals. The present study of the practice of such tribunals was made possible by the willingness of an experienced tribunal representative to open his case files to scrutiny, and attention was focussed on those cases active since the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983. The study period, dating from October 1983 to May 1984, yielded 35 completed case files. As the source of the material came from a region containing two special hospitals, 28 (73.7 per cent) of the 35 tribunal hearings studied related to patients previously involved in criminal proceedings.

Mental Health Legislation and the Right to Appropriate Treatment

1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 811-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L O'Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Care ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Clinical Vignettes ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Legislation

Objective: To demonstrate how mental health legislation and its implementation can detract from a patient's “right to health.” Method: The author surveyed colleagues working at the London and St Thomas Psychiatric Hospitals about cases where the structure or implementation of the Mental Health Act in Ontario (1) impeded the provision of good psychiatric care. Results: Four clinical vignettes illustrate specific problems; possible solutions to these difficulties are suggested. Conclusion: Physicians must remain vigilant in their role as advocates for patients' right to appropriate treatment.

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

The law

2009 ◽  
pp. 459-498
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Disability Discrimination ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Disability Discrimination Act ◽  
Health Review

Mental Health Act 1983 460 Mental Health Act 2007 462 Compulsory admission to hospital for assessment and treatment 464 Emergency holding powers 466 Mental Health Review Tribunals 468 The Mental Health Act Commission 470 Sexual Offences Act 472 Disability Discrimination Act 2005 474 Human Rights Act ...

scholarly journals A review of the applications for involuntary admissions made to the Mental Health Review Boards by institutions in Gauteng in 2008

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
M Y H Moosa ◽  
F Y Jeenah
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Outpatient Care ◽  
Inpatient Care ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Massive Scale ◽  
Inpatient And Outpatient Care ◽  
Health Review ◽  
Review Boards

<p><strong>Aim.</strong> To review applications for involuntary admissions made to the Mental Health Review Boards (MHRBs) by institutions in Gauteng.</p><p><strong>Method.</strong> A retrospective review of the register/database of the two review boards in Gauteng for the period January - December 2008. All applications for admissions (involuntary and assisted inpatient) and outpatient care (involuntary and assisted), and periodic reports for continued care (inpatient or outpatient care) were included.</p><p><strong>Results.</strong> During the study period the two MHRBs received a total of 3 803 applications for inpatient care, of which 2 526 were for assisted inpatient care (48.1% regional hospitals, 29.6% specialised psychiatric hospitals, 22.2% tertiary academic hospitals). Of the applications for involuntary inpatient care, 73.1% were from the specialised psychiatric hospitals (65.2% from Sterkfontein Hospital). Applications for outpatient care, treatment and rehabilitation (CTR) numbered 1 226 (92% assisted outpatient CTR). Although the health establishments in northern Gauteng applied for more outpatient CTR compared with those in southern Gauteng (879 v. 347, respectively), the ratios of assisted to involuntary outpatient applications for CTR for each region were similar (approximately 12:1 and 9:1, respectively). The boards received 3 805 periodic reports for prolonged CTR (93.5% inpatient, 6.5% outpatient), in the majority of cases for assisted CTR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion.</strong> The study suggests that in the 4 years since the promulgation of the MHCA in 2004 , there have been significant strides towards implementation of the procedures relating to involuntary admission and CTR by all stakeholders. Differences in levels of implementation by the various stakeholders may result from differences in knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and understanding of their roles and therefore indicate the need for education of mental health care professionals and the public on a massive scale. The Department of Health also needs to invest more funds to improve mental health human resources and infrastructure at all health establishments.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document