[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> C, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2002] EWHC 243 (Admin) (1 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/243.html Cite as: [2002] EWHC 243 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		Friday 1st February 2002

1. MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The application is made by Mr C in person. Mr C is currently detained under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 following convictions in the Crown Court on 3rd March 1998. He is at present in St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton.
2. His case was considered by the Mental Health Review Tribunal on 20th September last year. The outcome was not the one that
3. Mr C was hoping for. The tribunal refused to discharge him from the liability to be detained. Mr C has indicated an intention to apply for judicial review of the decision. Indeed, as I am informed by the court administration, a file has been opened under the number 469/02, but the proceedings have not yet been finally formulated and have not yet been served on the legal representative for the Tribunal, namely, the Treasury Solicitor. Accordingly, I say nothing whatsoever about that application for judicial review. That will have to await events.
4. I turn my attention solely to the question of the writ of habeas corpus. The question I have to consider is whether there is material before me sufficient to justify the issue of a writ or to progress the application for habeas corpus any further at this stage. On the face of it Mr C is lawfully detained by reason of the orders that were made on 30th March 1998 and as a result of the decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal of 20th September 2001.
5. In the submissions that have been made to me and in the documents he prepared, which I have read, Mr C has courteously made representations to the effect that his detention is unwarranted by reference to the materials that were before the Tribunal and by reference to his current condition.
6. The materials before the Tribunal were various. In the bundle that is before me it appears that the two principal medical advisers were Dr Shapero, a consultant forensic psychiatrist who is Mr C's responsible medical officer, and Dr Somekh, another consultant forensic psychiatrist. In his report Dr Shapero concluded:

"Plans are being gradually made to move towards the Conditional Discharge within the local community, and a place in a local hostel has been provisionally identified. In my opinion however, it is likely to be as much as a year at the present rate of progress before such a Conditional Discharge will become a realistic possibility. For the present I am still of the opinion that Lee suffers from a Mental Disorder, namely Mental Illness, and that this is presently of a nature sufficient to render him liable to detention in hospital. In the past he has acted dangerously while psychotic, and he requires detention for his own health and safety, and the safety of others."

7. I should add that the date of that report was 17th September 2001.
8. In his most recent reported dated 13th September 2001, Dr Somekh referred to Dr Shapero's opinion and stated:

"I would cautiously support a Conditional Discharge as I believe it is implicit in Mr Pleasence's report of April. I appreciate that this is a somewhat unusual recommendation given that Mr C has not even had escorted community leave at this stage but I believe this in part reflects the caution with which his case is currently being dealt with and possibly also the awareness of the medical team that the Home Office has been equally cautious in the past as witness the events at the beginning of the year 2000 when escorted community leave was refused by the Home Office. While I have sympathy with Dr Shapero's view that a gradual move is his favoured option I am concerned that the move may be so gradual as to in fact have a negative impact on Mr C's mental stability because he is likely to become increasingly frustrated and certainly given his progress over the last 6 months it is rather surprising that he is still on Robinson Ward. As stated above I believe that this is a case where the Tribunal could consider a Deferred Conditional Discharge with a view to a placement at the Linfield Rehabilitation Hostel with appropriate conditions being attached to his placement."

9. It follows from what I have said that there was a divergence of view between two psychiatrists, Dr Somekh acknowledging that his recommendation was "somewhat unusual" in the circumstances. All that was for the evaluation of the Mental Health Tribunal. Unless and until the decision of the Tribunal is successfully challenged, there is no basis for this court to form even a provisional view that Mr C is or may be currently unlawfully detained.
10. In all those circumstances the application for habeas corpus is at the very least premature and, on the basis of the present material, is without any prospect of success.
11. I emphasise that I am not expressing any view about that decision at all. The materials are not before me and I do not know what the grounds of challenge will be or whether they have any prospect of success.
12. Accordingly, and acknowledging Mr C's genuine concern about his predicament, and the courteous and succinct way in which he has addressed the court both orally and on paper, I have to say that there is nothing I can do to help him today.
13. In the circumstances the habeas corpus application is dismissed.