PQR v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] UKUT 195 (AAC)
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors
14 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3182 (Admin)
High Court
A hospital wanted to use video calls instead of in-person checkups for mental health patients. The judge said the law requires in-person checkups because it's about protecting people's freedom, and video calls might not be as good. They said that changing the law is up to the government, not the courts.
Key Facts
- •Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust sought declarations on the interpretation of sections 17A, 20, and 20A of the Mental Health Act 1983 regarding remote examinations for community treatment orders (CTOs) and detention renewals.
- •The case arose from the Divisional Court's decision in *Devon Partnership NHS Trust v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care*, which required face-to-face examinations for sections 11(5) and 12(1).
- •Interested parties included NHS England and an individual (PQR) whose CTO renewal involved a remote examination.
- •The court considered whether the 'examine' requirement in sections 20 and 20A necessitates face-to-face contact.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation requires considering Parliament's intention at the time of enactment and whether that intention applies to modern circumstances.
*Birmingham City Council v Oakley*, *Owens v Owens*, *R (N) v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council*
Powers to deprive individuals of liberty are construed strictly, requiring clear statutory authority.
*Devon Partnership NHS Trust v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care*, *Bennion on Statutory Interpretation*
The use of the same word in different sections of an Act gives rise to the presumption that it has the same meaning.
None explicitly stated, but implied throughout the judgment.
Courts should avoid giving abstract declarations on statutory interpretation unless justified by exceptional circumstances.
*R (Rusbridger) v Attorney General*, *R (on the application of Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government*
Outcomes
Declaration regarding section 17A refused.
Ambiguity in the term 'face-to-face examination' and the need for a fact-specific analysis, making abstract declaration inappropriate.
Declarations regarding sections 20 and 20A refused.
The court found that 'examine' in sections 20 and 20A requires a physical examination, rejecting the claimant's argument for an 'updating construction'. The court emphasized the need for a high degree of assurance regarding the effectiveness of the examination and the strict construction required for provisions restricting liberty.
Similar Cases
Kieran Upadrasta v The Commissioner of the City of London Police
[2023] EWHC 1853 (KB)
Surrey Police v PC & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1274 (Fam)
In the matter of an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, his father and next friend for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
[2024] UKSC 7
Dr Geoffrey William Guy & Ors v Nihal Mohammed Brake & Ors (Moratorium cancellation directions)
[2023] EWHC 1560 (Ch)