MN, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr H Southey appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss M Demetriou appeared on behalf of the Defendant

Judges

MR JUSTICE PLENDER

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

MN, R (on the application of) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for review brought by the Plaintiff, a patient detained at a secure hospital, challenging a ruling of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 8 June 2007. The Tribunal had determined that the Plaintiff's application made while he was a restricted patient under Sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ceased to have effect upon his ceasing to be a restricted patient. The Plaintiff sought to clarify whether an appeal made under Section 70 of the Act remains in force after the patient’s restricted status ends. The matter involves interpreting provisions of the 1983 Act related to the rights of restricted and non-restricted patients to apply to the Tribunal and the procedural differences applicable to each category.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an application made by a patient under Section 70 of the Mental Health Act 1983 continues to have effect after the patient ceases to be a restricted patient.
How the statutory scheme treats patients whose restricted status ends during detention, particularly regarding their rights to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Whether the Tribunal’s practice of treating Section 70 applications as converted to Section 69 (2) applications upon cessation of restricted status is legally valid.
Whether the procedural requirements involving the Secretary of State for restricted patients apply once restricted status ends.
Whether the statutory scheme and Tribunal practice comply with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning access to an independent tribunal and regular review.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Plaintiff's representative argued that an application under Section 70 should remain in force even after the patient ceases to be restricted, as otherwise the patient loses a periodic right to apply to the Tribunal.
He contended that converting a Section 70 application to one under Section 69 (2) may cause disadvantage or embarrassment to the patient, forcing strategic decisions about when to apply.
He submitted that the Secretary of State’s involvement should cease once the patient is no longer restricted, despite the mandatory language of the Tribunal Rules.
He invoked Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that administrative practices inconsistent with statutory provisions do not satisfy Convention obligations.
He sought permission to appeal on grounds of practical importance to other patients facing similar issues.

Respondent's Arguments

The Tribunal’s representative submitted that once the restriction order ceases, the application under Section 70 lapses because it applies only to restricted patients by definition.
She argued that the statutory scheme treats restricted and non-restricted patients distinctly, with no fluidity between categories.
The procedural regime differs significantly, especially regarding the Secretary of State’s mandatory participation for restricted patients, which does not apply to non-restricted patients.
The Tribunal’s practice of treating Section 70 applications as Section 69 (2) applications is designed to assist patients and avoid delay, not to override statutory provisions.
She resisted the application for permission to appeal, describing the case as academic and no longer practically important to the Plaintiff.
The Tribunal sought an order for costs, subject to legal aid rules.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v South Thames Mental Health Review Tribunal ex p M	Change in patient status between Sections 2 and 3 does not deprive tribunal jurisdiction if application made before hearing.	Cited to illustrate that change in detention status does not necessarily terminate tribunal applications; however, the distinction between restricted and non-restricted patients differs and supports the Tribunal’s position.
R (On application of SR) v Mental Health Review Tribunal	Interpretation of patient status in relation to tribunal applications and restrictions on application timing.	Supported the view that patients with different statutory statuses are treated separately and that Parliament intended to restrict applications within specified periods.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework of the Mental Health Act 1983, focusing on Sections 41(5), 69(2), 70, and related provisions. Section 70 grants restricted patients the right to annual applications to the tribunal, but this right is limited to the period during which the patient is restricted. Upon cessation of the restriction order, Section 41(5) treats the patient as if admitted under a hospital order without restriction from that date, triggering different application rights under Section 69(2).

The court emphasized that the statutory scheme does not envisage patients moving fluidly between restricted and non-restricted categories with overlapping rights. The Tribunal’s practice of converting Section 70 applications to Section 69(2) applications upon loss of restricted status was recognized as administrative, designed to avoid disadvantage and delay, but it does not alter the legal effect that the original Section 70 application lapses.

The court also considered procedural differences, notably the mandatory role of the Secretary of State in restricted patient hearings, which cannot logically continue once the patient ceases to be restricted. The mandatory language of the Tribunal Rules conflicts with any suggestion that the Secretary of State’s role simply drops out, reinforcing the conclusion that the Section 70 application cannot remain live.

Domestic authorities were examined and found supportive of the conclusion that patient status governs tribunal application rights distinctly, and that Parliament intended to restrict the timing and number of applications to avoid repeated or overlapping appeals.

The court further found no incompatibility between the statutory scheme and Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, noting that the patient retains access to regular tribunal review under the appropriate provisions for non-restricted patients.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s application for review, holding that an application under Section 70 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ceases to have effect when the patient ceases to be a restricted patient. The Tribunal’s administrative practice of treating such applications as made under Section 69(2) does not alter this legal effect.

The direct consequence is that patients whose restricted status ends lose the right to maintain a live Section 70 application but may apply under Section 69(2) as non-restricted patients. No new precedent was established beyond confirming the statutory interpretation and existing administrative practice. The court refused permission to appeal, finding the issue no longer practically important to the Plaintiff and not sufficiently complex to warrant lower court permission.