D.K. v Mental Health [Criminal Law] Review Board and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was tried in the Circuit Court for offences including burglary, criminal damage and arson arising from events on 31 October 2016. On 9 May 2019 a jury returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. After a s.5(3) assessment, the Circuit Court committed the Plaintiff to The Hospital on 11 December 2019 pursuant to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. The Review Board (Respondent) conducts statutory s.13 reviews of such detention, and the June 2024 review decision (the "June decision") was the eleventh review. The Plaintiff sought judicial review of the June decision on grounds that it gave no or inadequate reasons and failed to engage with certain evidence and options (including conditional discharge). Judge Brett delivered the judgment on 22 October 2025 and upheld the June decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Review Board's June 2024 s.13 decision contained adequate reasons.
2. Whether, as a matter of statutory obligation, the Review Board must apply or restate the same statutory test used by the trial court under s.5(2) (including the Mental Health Act 2001 definition of "mental disorder") at each s.13 review.
3. Whether the Review Board was obliged, of its own motion, to address conditional discharge (or other disposals) in the June review where such options or legal submissions had not been advanced at the hearing.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The June decision gave no reasons, or inadequate reasons, leaving the Plaintiff unable to know what the Board considered or why it rejected matters raised (including past community functioning and submissions by a supporting friend).
• The Review Board should have applied and explained the statutory criteria equivalent to the court's s.5(2) determination, including engagement with the Mental Health Act 2001 definition of "mental disorder".
• The Board failed to consider options under s.13(2), particularly conditional discharge, or to explain why such options were rejected.
• The Court should adopt or articulate a test/criteria (drawing on F.C. v Mental Health Tribunal and HK v Llanarth Court Hospital aide-memoire) for adequate reasons in s.13 reviews.

Respondent's Arguments

• The reasons for the June decision are evident when the decision is read as a whole and in context, including the treating psychiatrist's written report and the hearing record.
• There was no factual or legal dispute at the June hearing about diagnosis (schizophrenia) or the psychiatric opinion; the Board's role is forward-looking (whether the patient is "still" in need of inpatient treatment) and need not replicate the court's original s.5(2) inquiry.
• The treating psychiatrist expressly considered conditional and absolute discharge and recommended continued detention; no challenge to that medical opinion was made in the hearing.
• It was inappropriate to broaden the challenge on judicial review to matters not raised before the Board; any contested legal test should first be advanced to the decision-maker.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the June decision together with the contemporaneous record of the hearing and the treating psychiatrist's report. The statutory context (s.13 of the 2006 Act) requires the Board to determine whether the patient is "still in need of inpatient treatment" by hearing evidence, notably the treating consultant psychiatrist. The Court applied the established approach that reasons must be assessed in context (per M.R. v Byrne and F.C.), not by isolating a single short conclusion. The Court found:

• There was no disputed factual issue at the June hearing that required explicit resolution—the diagnosis of schizophrenia and the treating psychiatrist's opinion recommending continued detention were not challenged.
• The treating psychiatrist's report expressly considered and rejected conditional and absolute discharge and recommended renewal of detention; that opinion and the hearing record explained the Board's basis for concluding ongoing inpatient care was necessary to manage dynamic risks (HCR-20 assessment referenced).
• The Plaintiff had not sought the hearing record or otherwise raised the complex statutory test now advanced before the Board; the Court emphasised that novel or complex legal submissions should first be advanced to the decision-maker.
• The Board's decision, though concisely worded and not discursive, contained the key findings relevant to its statutory task and, when read with the report and hearing record, furnished sufficient reasons for review purposes.
• The Court distinguished F.C. on its facts and therefore declined to require the Board to adopt the aide-memoire format or to set out a test not argued before the Board.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION REFUSED; JUNE DECISION UPHELD

Holding: The Court upheld the Review Board's June 2024 s.13 decision as adequately reasoned when the decision is read as a whole together with the contemporaneous hearing record and the treating psychiatrist's report.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Plaintiff's challenge to the June decision fails and the Board's order renewing detention stands. The Court declined to lay down a new or mandatory form of reasoning or statutory test for s.13 reviews where such issues were not argued before the Board; no broader new precedent was established.