Defining "Ordinarily Resident" and Continuity of Duty under the Mental Health Act 1983: Worcestershire CC v SS for Health and Social Care (2021): England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Introduction

The case of Worcestershire County Council v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care ([2021] EWCA Civ 1957) addresses a pivotal question within the framework of the Mental Health Act 1983 concerning the provision of after-care services. The dispute revolves around determining which local authority bears the financial responsibility for after-care services of a service user, JG, following her detention and subsequent releases under the Act.

The parties involved include Worcestershire County Council (the appellant) and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the respondent). Central to the dispute was the interpretation of "ordinarily resident" in relation to JG's residency status immediately before her second detention, and whether Worcestershire's duty to provide after-care had ceased.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld the initial judgment by Linden J., who determined that Swindon Borough Council was the responsible local authority for JG's after-care services. This conclusion was based on the finding that JG was "ordinarily resident" in Swindon immediately before her second detention, notwithstanding Worcestershire's original duty stemming from her first detention.

The appellant, Worcestershire County Council, challenged two main propositions:

Whether the duty to provide after-care services continued despite JG's second detention.
Whether "ordinarily resident" should be interpreted based on fiscal and administrative purposes rather than actual residence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's arguments, reaffirming that the duty under section 117(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 persists until an explicit decision terminates it, regardless of subsequent detentions or changes in residence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and statutory provisions:

R (Hertfordshire County Council) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2011]: This case examined the interpretation of "resident" under the Mental Health Act 1983 prior to amendments.
R (Cornwall CC) v Secretary of State for Health [2016] AC 137: A Supreme Court decision that influenced the interpretation of "ordinarily resident" in care statutes, particularly highlighting the distinction between actual residence and fiscal responsibility.
R v London Borough of Barnet Ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309: Established the general approach to interpreting "ordinarily resident" as a person's voluntary and settled abode.
R v Richmond upon Thames LBC Ex parte Watson [2002] 2 AC 1127: Affirmed that section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a standalone provision, not reliant on previous acts like the National Assistance Act 1948.

These precedents collectively reinforced the principle that "ordinarily resident" should reflect the individual's actual living circumstances rather than administrative convenience, especially under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on the strict interpretation of section 117(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983. It emphasized that the duty to provide after-care services remains indefatigable until an explicit decision is made to terminate it. The key points in the court's reasoning included:

The absence of any termination decision under section 117(2) meant that Worcestershire's duty was ongoing.
The modification from "resident" to "ordinarily resident" in the 2014 Care Act did not fundamentally alter the interpretation under the 1983 Act, especially in the absence of corresponding deeming provisions.
The court rejected the appellant's assertion that fiscal and administrative responsibilities should override actual residency in determining after-care obligations.
Assertions that statutory amendments created inconsistencies or rendered certain provisions obsolete were dismissed as not supported by legislative intent or statutory language.

Furthermore, the court maintained that allowing the duty to be automatically transferred based on changes in residency without an explicit termination decision would undermine the continuity of care and legal clarity.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for local authorities and the provision of after-care services under the Mental Health Act 1983:

Clarification of "Ordinarily Resident": Reinforces the need to assess actual residence status over administrative convenience in determining service responsibilities.
Continuity of Duty: Establishes that duties under section 117(2) persist across multiple detentions unless explicitly terminated, ensuring uninterrupted care for vulnerable individuals.
Legislative Interpretation: Highlights the importance of adhering to statutory language and legislative intent, particularly when interpreting amended laws.
Policy Consistency: Underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining consistency and preventing arbitrary shifts in responsibility, which could jeopardize effective care delivery.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when disputes arise over the interpretation of residency and the continuity of after-care duties, promoting greater legal certainty and safeguarding the rights of individuals under mental health legislation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

"Ordinarily Resident"

The term "ordinarily resident" refers to a person's usual place of abode, where they live on a settled basis. It is not merely about physical presence but encompasses where the individual intends to reside permanently or for an extended period.

Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983

Section 117 outlines the provision of after-care services for individuals who have been detained under the Act. Specifically:

Section 117(2): Mandates that the responsible local authority must provide after-care services until they determine that such services are no longer necessary.
Section 117(3): Defines which local authority is responsible based on the individual's residence immediately before detention.

Deeming Provisions

Deeming provisions are statutory clauses that assign a status or condition to an individual for legal purposes, even if it does not reflect reality. For instance, under certain acts, a person's residence might be "deemed" to be in a specific area for the sake of administrative convenience.

Conclusion

The Worcestershire County Council v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (2021) EWCA Civ 1957 judgment serves as a crucial clarification in the interpretation of "ordinarily resident" within the context of the Mental Health Act 1983. By upholding the continuity of duty under section 117(2) and emphasizing the primacy of actual residence over administrative convenience, the court reinforced the protection of vulnerable individuals requiring after-care services. This decision ensures that local authorities cannot arbitrarily shift responsibility without a clear legislative mandate, thereby promoting stability and consistency in the provision of mental health services.

Defining "Ordinarily Resident" and Continuity of Duty under the Mental Health Act 1983: Worcestershire CC v SS for Health and Social Care (2021)