1 / 7

Valerie Mays Solicitor Legal Secretary to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland

Valerie Mays Solicitor Legal Secretary to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland “Tribunals – what we need to know” SASW MHO Forum Perth Concert Hall - Thursday 6 October 2011. Tribunal Statistics. From 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011: the Tribunal held 4,255 hearings

aure
Download Presentation

Valerie Mays Solicitor Legal Secretary to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Valerie Mays Solicitor Legal Secretary to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland “Tribunals – what we need to know” SASW MHO Forum Perth Concert Hall - Thursday 6 October 2011

  2. Tribunal Statistics From 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011: • the Tribunal held • 4,255 hearings • at 77 venues across Scotland

  3. Role of the MHOin Tribunal proceedings The MHO is • sometimes the applicant and therefore a party,e.g. section 63 applications • sometimes a witness, e.g. section 92 applications to extend and vary a CTO What does the Tribunal need from the MHO? • evidence

  4. KM v Mental Health Tribunalfor Scotland - 2009 GWD 40-694 Issue: whether there was a permitted conflict of interest in the two mental health reports accompanying the CTO application in terms of the Mental Health (Conflict of Interest) (Scotland) (No.2) Regulations 2005(SSI 2005/380) Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen Young BT QC, at para 16: “At the end of the day it was for the second respondent [the MHO], whose application it was, to ensure that the necessary evidence was put before the tribunal to satisfy it, if such indeed was the case, that the condition had been met”.

  5. JG v Mental Health Tribunalfor Scotland – 2010 GWD 40-817 Judgement of Sheriff Principal J A Taylor, 14 October 2010 Para 11: “It seems to me that a consideration of Lord Carswell’s speech would lead one to the view that the provisions of section 60 with regard to notification are directory notwithstanding the use of the imperative “shall” in the Section… I come to the view that broadly speaking the purpose of the notification has been achieved. In my opinion even if I am wrong in considering the notification provisions in Section 60 to be directory, I am of the opinion that the consequence of the failure to notify the patient on a second occasion that it was the intention to apply for a compulsory treatment order, when notification had been given some six days earlier than the duty arose, is not sufficient to render the subsequent proceedings invalid. I do not see the patient having suffered any prejudice”.

  6. LBN v Fiona Borland and MHTS(unreported) Judgement of Sheriff Principal B A Lockhart, 9 May 2011 Para 30: “The application for a compulsory treatment order, the first respondent’s report, the care plan, the medical reports and the Tribunal's Full Findings and Reasons point conclusively to the fact that the appellant is in need of compulsory measures of care. Such a course is in both his and the public interest. It is inconceivable that the intention of Parliament was that such a course would be frustrated by the failure to observe a time limit by some 15 hours in a situation where there has clearly been no prejudice to the appellant.

  7. Current issues • In-house Conveners • Case management • Tribunal craft • Doubled up hearings / triple hearings • Rule 58 hearings

More Related