Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66
This Supreme Court case considered the interplay between Community Treatment Orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 and deprivation of liberty.
This Supreme Court case considered the interplay between Community Treatment Orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 and deprivation of liberty.
Background
PJ had been detained in hospital and discharged under a Community Treatment Order (CTO) with conditions that amounted to a DoL.
The patient, PJ, is 47 years old. He is described in evidence as having "mild to borderline learning disability … He has also been assessed recently as having difficulties which fall within the autistic spectrum. This has been accompanied by abnormally aggressive and seriously irresponsible behaviour consisting of violent and sexual offending."
PJ was subject to a CTO that imposed three bespoke conditions under section 17B(2) of the MHA including to reside at a named care home and to abide by the rules and also to comply with the care plan drawn up by multidisciplinary team.
There was agreement that the conditions of the CTO amounted to an objective deprivation of liberty. In particular PJ’s whereabouts were monitored at all times within the unit, with 15 minute observations and he was escorted by staff on all community outings, including when attending college and meeting his girlfriend.
There was also agreement that PJ had the capacity to consent to the care plan and to the conditions in the CTO. The evidence before the tribunal was that he was happy to stay at the care home and understood that the CTO brought benefits because he needed clear boundaries, but that he would like more freedom to see his family and his girlfriend.
PJ applied to the tribunal which refused his application for discharge. The Upper Tribunal overturned that decision, declaring that the Tribunal should have used its power of discharge to stop the ongoing breach of the patient’s ECHR article 5 rights (the right to liberty).
The Court of Appeal held that the Responsible Clinician’s (RC) power to restrict the freedom of movement of a patient to the extent of objectively depriving him of his liberty by the conditions attached to a CTO was permitted as part of the MHA statutory framework. The Court of Appeal also held that the remedy for any illegality, including any Convention illegality such as a breach of Article 5 ECHR, is to challenge the CTO by way of an application for judicial review.
The Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The Court declared that there is no power to impose conditions in a Community Treatment Order which have the effect of objectively depriving a patient of his liberty, in a judgment consistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning set out in the linked case of MM.
In their reasoning the Court commented that it is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that a power expressed in general words should not be construed to interfere with fundamental rights such as the right to liberty of the person.
The Court quoted the earlier case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, at p 131:
“Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words….In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual.”
They noted that there is no power to detain a patient on a CTO, no power to impose medical treatment without consent, and no sanction for failing to comply with the care plan, other than the limited power of recall. The court commented that if the CTO patient cannot be made to take their medication, how can Parliament have intended an even greater interference with their fundamental rights? In addition whilst there is a limited power of recall, there is no power similar to that for section 2 or 3 patients to recapture them if they breach the care plan or are absent without leave.
They also commented that the 2007 amendments to the 1983 Act were preceded by lengthy examination and consultation; the Royal College of Psychiatrists had long been pressing for some means of ensuring that detained patients kept up with their medication and did not get lost after being discharged from hospital. However these calls for coercive treatment in the community were rejected as there was great opposition to any form of compulsory or forcible medical treatment outside the carefully controlled environment of a hospital.
As regards the second issue raised of the interplay between the patient’s ECHR rights and the Tribunal’s powers, Lady Hale held that:
“33.[…] The MHRT has no jurisdiction over the conditions of treatment and detention in hospital, but these can be relevant to whether the statutory criteria for detention are made out, especially in borderline cases…..[the patient’s] treatment and care may well feature in the debate about whether he should be discharged…….The patient’s actual situation on the ground may well be relevant to whether the criteria for the CTO are made out. Furthermore, if the tribunal identifies a state of affairs amounting to an unlawful deprivation of liberty, it must be within its powers to explain to all concerned what the true legal effect of a CTO is. But the patient can only apply to the tribunal once during each period for which the CTO lasts (six months, six months, then once a year). If the reality is that he is being unlawfully detained, then the remedy is either habeas corpus or judicial review”
Comment
In light of the recent related MM judgment, this judgment and reasoning is not unexpected and accords with the existing MHA Code of Practice and original purpose of CTOs as discussed at length in the lead up to the 2007 Act.
For judgment, see following link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0037-judgment.pdfRelated expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
ICO consultation on accessing care records: A legal perspective
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights round up - Spring 2024
Online Event - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: focus on the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF)
Legal Update
Employment Healthcare Briefing - March 2024
Opinion
Government’s Spring Budget invests millions in maternity safety
Legal Update
NHS England publishes updated guidance on NHS subsidiary companies
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Sexual safety in the workplace — how leaders can help to create a sexual safety culture
Legal Update - Maternity services
Chesterfield Royal Hospital ranked amongst the top Trusts nationally in the 2023 Maternity Survey
Published Article
Planning the future of healthcare
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights round up - Winter 2023
Opinion - Maternity services
BBC investigation finds NHS interpreting service problems contributed to baby deaths and serious brain injuries
Online Event
Mock inquest training sessions
Guide
Guide to preparing and delivering evidence of organisational learning to the Coroner
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Improving communication with patients and families when responding to incidents, complaints and claims
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Racial disparities in healthcare and the role of health technology in improving equity, increasing patient safety and reducing claims
Published Article
Investing in healthcare in Saudi Arabia under the new regulatory framework
Legal Update - Maternity services
HSIB publishes 'Maternity Investigation Programme: Year in Review 2022/23'
Opinion
Carer's Leave Bill set to become law
Legal Update
New regulatory pathways announced for innovative medical technologies and internationally approved medicines
Guide
Guide to writing statements for an inquest
Published Article
Risks and opportunities arising through the use of AI in Healthcare
Guide
Guide to the coroners' inquest process for clinical witnesses
Opinion
Junior doctors vote unanimously in favour of strike action
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Guide
Government response to the consultation on the Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations
Published Article
The first 100 days for Integrated Care Boards
Legal Update
Safeguarding at scale report published
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Legal Update
LPS consultation and ‘go live’ planning
Published Article
How AI and technology can transform the healthcare sector
On-Demand
Leadership and lessons learnt during the Pandemic by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam
Opinion
NHS England – Updated Transaction Guidance
NHS England has published (October 2022) new guidance - Assuring and supporting complex change: Statutory transactions, including mergers and acquisitions.
Opinion
NHS England – Assuring and supporting complex change
NHS England has issued an updated (publication 11 October 2022) suite of Complex Change guidance about how it will assure and support proposals for complex change that are reportable to it. New and (where it is still in force) existing Complex Change guidance are as follows.
Guide
Highlights from the Health and Care Connect Conference
Guide
Checklist for taking part in a remote inquest hearing
Legal Update
Health and Care Regulation – The Present and the Future
In this article, we discuss some of the themes we have seen in recent CQC regulation as well as providing an update on the development of their new assessment framework. I will also highlight other key developments in the sector that all providers should be aware of.
On-Demand
ICS Forum webinar series: New rules for service reconfiguration
This on-demand webinar looks at the Secretary of State’s new powers under the Health & Care Act 2022 & impact on current approach for healthcare providers.
On-Demand
ICS Forum webinar series: What’s new for ICSs?
Presented by Gerard Hanratty, this on-demand webinar looks into the key new functions for Integrated Care Systems under the new Health & Care Act 2022. It provides a useful update on what is new, how it may be interpreted and what issues may arise.