SS v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Mental Health)
[2023] UKUT 258 (AAC)
SF v Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust & Anor
16 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 205 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman with autism and PTSD was kept in the hospital, but the judge said the hospital wasn't giving her the right kind of help. The hospital was mainly keeping her safe, not treating her mental health problems. Even though she's now out of the hospital, the judge said the hospital needs to treat people's mental health problems, not just keep them safe.
Key Facts
- •RB, a woman with autism spectrum disorder and complex PTSD, was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA).
- •An application was made to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) to review her detention.
- •The FtT found that while RB's current treatment was not tailored to her diagnosis and lacked essential psychosocial support, it provided medical treatment preventing worsening of symptoms.
- •The FtT refused an adjournment request for further information on aftercare.
- •RB has since been discharged from detention.
Legal Principles
The criteria for detention under section 72(1)(b) MHA must be satisfied, including the availability of appropriate medical treatment.
Mental Health Act 1983
'Medical treatment' includes nursing, psychological intervention, and specialist mental health support, and must alleviate or prevent worsening of the disorder or its symptoms.
Mental Health Act 1983, section 145
Appropriate medical treatment must be tailored to the patient's individual needs; generic treatment is insufficient.
Case law interpretation of MHA
Interventions solely for containing risk of physical harm, without addressing the mental disorder, are not sufficient for 'appropriate medical treatment'.
Case law interpretation of MHA
Tribunals have broad case management powers, including the power to adjourn, but the Upper Tribunal is reluctant to interfere with their decisions.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) Rules 2008
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FtT erred in law by finding that appropriate medical treatment was available, as the treatment focused on physical safety rather than addressing RB's underlying mental health needs. The FtT's refusal to adjourn was also considered, but not ruled upon due to the primary error identified.
The FtT decision was not set aside.
Given RB's discharge, setting aside the decision served no purpose; the focus was on identifying and explaining the legal error.