MB v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] UKUT 261 (AAC)
AC v Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust & Anor
19 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 297 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A patient applied to a tribunal, but was recalled to hospital before a decision. The recall meant the tribunal couldn't decide on the original application. The law says the hospital must get a review from a tribunal after a recall, which satisfies the need for a court to check on the patient's detention. So, the tribunal was right to stop dealing with the original application.
Key Facts
- •AC, a conditionally discharged restricted patient under the Mental Health Act 1983, applied to the First-tier Tribunal.
- •Before the application was decided, the Secretary of State recalled AC.
- •The First-tier Tribunal decided it lacked jurisdiction over AC's application and struck out the proceedings.
- •AC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal challenged this jurisdictional decision.
Legal Principles
A tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear a case if it does not have the authority to act based on the subject matter, parties involved, or relief sought.
Garthwaite v Garthwaite [1964] P 356
A tribunal's jurisdiction is determined by the circumstances at the time of the application, not by subsequent events.
Case law precedent (not explicitly cited)
Changes in a patient's status under the Mental Health Act 1983 may or may not affect a tribunal's jurisdiction, depending on the specific provisions involved.
Case law precedent, including DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and VS v Elysium Healthcare
The Mental Health Act 1983 prioritizes judicial oversight of detention, which is guaranteed through automatic referral upon recall of a conditionally discharged patient.
Case law precedent and interpretation of Section 75(1)(a)
Section 75(1) imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to refer a recalled conditionally discharged patient's case to the tribunal, protecting the patient’s Article 5(4) rights under the ECHR.
Mental Health Act 1983, Section 75(1), and R (Rayner) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] 1 WLR 310
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
The recall of AC resulted in the loss of the First-tier Tribunal's jurisdiction over his application. The subsequent referral by the Secretary of State, mandated by Section 75(1), provided sufficient judicial oversight, rendering the application superfluous.