OO v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust & Anor
[2024] UKUT 190 (AAC)
SS v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Mental Health)
22 October 2023
[2023] UKUT 258 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man was held in a mental hospital. A court hearing decided to keep him there without checking if there was a suitable plan for his care after leaving the hospital. A higher court said this was wrong because the care plan was very important, and sent the case back to be heard again properly.
Key Facts
- •SS, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA).
- •SS's application for review was heard twice by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The FTT's second hearing refused an adjournment to obtain aftercare information, despite the central relevance of aftercare to SS's discharge.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found that the FTT erred in law by refusing the adjournment.
- •The UT allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the FTT for rehearing with specific directions regarding aftercare evidence.
Legal Principles
A tribunal should adjourn to seek information on aftercare if its availability is centrally relevant to the discharge decision.
AM v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2012] UKUT 382 (AAC)
The overriding objective of the FTT Rules is to deal with cases fairly and justly, including avoiding unnecessary delay.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008, Rule 2
Procedural unfairness occurs if a party is deprived of evidence necessary to make their case, especially when that evidence is controlled by a state agency.
Armory v Delamirie (1721) 1 Strange 505 and Article 6(1) and 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights
Fairness requires that tribunals consider all relevant evidence and adequately explain their decisions.
R (Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1812
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT erred in law by refusing to adjourn to obtain crucial aftercare information, leading to procedural unfairness and an inability to properly assess SS's eligibility for discharge under section 72 MHA.
Case remitted to the FTT for rehearing.
Further evidence and fact-finding are required regarding aftercare arrangements. The FTT is best placed to make these findings.