Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales)

Last updated

In England, the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health), more commonly known as the Mental Health Tribunal, is an independent quasi-judicial body established to safeguard the rights of persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983. It provides for consideration of appeals against the medical detention or forced treatment of a person who was deemed to be suffering from a mental disorder that was associated with a risk to the health or safety of that person or others.

Contents

Prior to an overhaul of the tribunal system in 2008, its functions were carried out by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which was a standalone body. In 2008 the Mental Health Review Tribunal was formally abolished as a standalone body and merged with the Health and Social Care Chamber of the newly established First-tier Tribunal (FTT). A new Upper Tribunal was also created, which hears appeals against decisions by the FTT. In Wales, the corresponding body is the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales. [1]

Tribunal hearings

Mental Health Tribunals are independent judicial bodies that operate under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983. A Tribunal's main purpose is to review the case of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act and to direct the discharge of any patient for whom the statutory criteria for discharge have been satisfied. In some cases, the Tribunal also has the discretion to discharge a patient who does not meet the statutory criteria. Such cases usually involve making a balanced judgement on a number of serious issues such as the freedom of the individual, the protection of the public and the best interests of the patient.

Tribunal panel members

The Lord Chancellor makes appointments to the panels of members for each region. In the case of medical and specialist members, the Secretary of State for Health (for cases in England) or the Secretary of State for Wales is also consulted. The Regional Chairmen appoint the members who are to sit at a particular hearing and there must be a legal member, a medical member and a specialist member appointed for each Tribunal hearing to form a legal quorum. In the event that one or two members are not present, the third member can technically open the tribunal and then immediately adjourn the hearing until another two members are able to attend. Any decisions formed by the tribunal are that of the tribunal, rather than the particular judicial member. There will be no dissenting judgment.

The legal member's role is to preside (i.e. take the chair) at all tribunal hearings. Their title is Tribunal Judge and they will prepare all decisions, documents, recommendations and judgments, on behalf of the whole tribunal. His or her responsibilities also include making sure that the proceedings are conducted fairly, that the legal requirements of the Mental Health Act 1983 are properly observed within the rule of law and advise on any questions of law which may arise. He or she is also responsible for drafting the reasons for the decision (written reasons are required in all cases). Tribunal Judges are required to have "such legal experience, as the Lord Chancellor considers suitable" and are judicial office holders appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. They are normally senior legal practitioners such as solicitors or barristers, but in 'restricted patient panel' (RPP) cases (also known as forensic cases) the level must be that of a Circuit Judge or higher. The majority of Tribunal judges are Fee-paid judges (namely those who practise full time as a barrister or solicitor and have a part time judicial appointment). In addition there are a small number of full time Tribunal Judges ("District Tribunal Judge") who are based in London (at the Royal Courts of Justice) and in Manchester. Their mode of address (in writing and during the hearing) is "Judge".

Role of the specialist member (Specialist Member)

The specialist member undertakes a check and balance role to the Tribunal under the Tribunal Rules. He or she will be a professional outside the legal and medical profession, but might hold legal or healthcare qualifications. Most specialist members are senior or experienced practitioners or therapists with at least 5–7 years standing and will hold a range of experience within the mental health sector. Most specialist members are educated to postgraduate level in mental health, they may hold an advanced degree in psychology or forensics in RPP cases. The specialist member will have extensive background knowledge of professional practice within the mental health field, health and/or social services. Members can be drawn from the NHS, voluntary organisations, adult social services or the private health sector. Specialist members may also be mental health social workers, probation officers, approved mental health professionals, psychologists, mental health nurses and occupational therapists. He or she will be able to offer information to the other members of the Tribunal on matters relating to health and social care matters and often healthcare legal matters in context (i.e. Codes of Practice, best practice etc.). Generally, specialist members are appointed in office for a term of 5 years and this is reviewed every 5 years until the age of 70.

Role of the medical member (Medical Member)

The medical member has a dual role to perform. They are required by the Tribunal Rules to carry out an examination of the patient before the hearing and to take any steps that they consider necessary to form an opinion of the patient's mental condition. In England, the pre-medical examination is not a requirement to hear a case. At the hearing they, together with the other members of the Tribunal, have the responsibility of deciding whether or not the patient should continue to be detained or remain on a community treatment order. If the medical member's opinion of the patient differs significantly from other medical witnesses then this should be made known at the beginning of the hearing. This is because it would be unfair and contrary to a basic principle of natural justice if the Tribunal members were to take notice of information that had not been shared with all the other parties at the hearing. The medical member is invariably a consultant psychiatrist of several years' standing. He or she will be able to advise the other members of the Tribunal on any medical matters. Medical members are generally senior doctors, with at least 7 years experience and are often drawn in from Consultant level. Generally, medical members are appointed in office for a term of 5 years and this is reviewed every 5 years until the age of 70.

Course of the tribunal

Tribunals sit in private. Prior to the Covid -19 pandemic the hearings would take place in the hospital or community unit where the patient is detained. During the pandemic video hearings were used exclusively. Post pandemic, video hearings are used for many hearings but patients and their legal representatives are able to seek a face to face hearing. The Tribunal is also able to list the hearing face to face if appropriate. Physical location aside, the tribunals resemble court hearings, during which appropriate witnesses are invited to speak in turn. These include the detained person, his or her solicitor, the member of the multi-disciplinary team responsible for the detained person's care in hospital, known as the Responsible Clinician or RC (usually a consultant psychiatrist), a representative of the nursing staff at the hospital and the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP). Additionally, the RC and AMHP (or more frequently the patient's care coordinator) are required to submit written reports on the person's state of health to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing. If the detained person is an in patient the nurse will also submit a written report.

How the decision is made

Each member of the Tribunal is entitled to an equal voice on questions of law, procedure and substance. All the members participate in the making of decisions and, although the Judge is expected to draft the written reasons for the decision, this is done only after taking into account the contributions of the other members. If the members do not all agree then a decision of the majority of members of the Tribunal is taken as the decision of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal will consider the case and the patient as presented on the day. The Tribunal cannot question the circumstances that gave rise to the detention. The Tribunal decides whether or not to end the patient's detention in hospital. The parties are told of the decision at the conclusion of the hearing (following the panel taking time to consider the submissions and evidence). In all cases the Judge will provide detailed written reasons which set out the background, evidence, and the Tribunal's findings and conclusion.

The Tribunal has the power to order a deferred discharge which may be conditional (for example that an aftercare package is put in place).

Decisions of the Tribunal can be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, or to the High Court, by way of Judicial Review.

Organisation and oversight

The bodies

Technically the Mental Health Review Tribunal consists of two distinct bodies, within a single non-departmental public body.

The first body is the Judicial Tribunal itself with the responsibility for hearing applications or references concerning people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Tribunal members are appointed by the Ministry of Justice. There is a Liaison Judge appointed to the Tribunal to lead its development.

The second body is the Mental Health Review Tribunal Secretariat. This is staffed by members of the Department of Health, and has responsibility for the administration of the Tribunals.

Judicial Management

The Mental Health Tribunal is part of the First Tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care) which is led by the President of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) who appoints a Deputy President. The Deputy President's responsibilities include appointing members to particular hearings, ensuring that all the statutory requirements are complied with, making judicial decisions and giving such directions as are necessary to ensure the speedy and just determination of every case. Full time Tribunal Judges are appointed as training judges responsible for organising training for members, for overseeing the members' appraisal and mentoring scheme and for handling complaints about a member's conduct.

Organisation of the Tribunal

The Secretary of State for Health is responsible for meeting the expenses of Tribunals in England and for providing accommodation and staff. Administration is carried out at the Secretariat offices in Leicester. The Welsh Assembly has similar responsibilities for Tribunals in Wales and administration is carried out at the Secretariat office in Cardiff. All the Secretariat staff are civil servants and are completely independent of the hospital authorities. The Regional Chairmen and the Secretariat work closely together to make sure that the whole Tribunal process is closely managed. The role of the Home Office is confined to cases involving 'restricted patients'.

Tribunals operate independently of all Government Departments.

Fairness of decisions

A study in 2017, looked at the correlation between a number of predictors and the outcome of the MHRT decisions: The study commented that their "findings imply that decisions at MHRT are not biased in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, mental health diagnosis, or even index offence", rather its findings "suggest that by reducing levels of agitated behaviour, verbal aggression and physical violence on the ward, working towards being granted unescorted community leave, and specifically targeting items on the HCR-20 risk assessment" patients can increase their chance of discharge. [2]

See also

Sources

Related Research Articles

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

Involuntary commitment, civil commitment, or involuntary hospitalization/hospitalisation is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily. This treatment may involve the administration of psychoactive drugs, including involuntary administration. In many jurisdictions, people diagnosed with mental health disorders can also be forced to undergo treatment while in the community; this is sometimes referred to as outpatient commitment and shares legal processes with commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advance healthcare directive</span> Legal document

An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act regulates involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the state of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. The bipartisan bill was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank D. Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

A legal guardian is a person who has been appointed by a court or otherwise has the legal authority to make decisions relevant to the personal and property interests of another person who is deemed incompetent, called a ward. For example, a legal guardian might be granted the authority to make decisions regarding a ward's housing or medical care or manage the ward's finances. Guardianship is most appropriate when an alleged ward is functionally incapacitated, meaning they have a lagging skill critical to performing certain tasks, such as making important life decisions. Guardianship intends to serve as a safeguard to protect the ward.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children's hearing</span> Part of the legal and welfare systems for children and young people in Scotland

A children's hearing is part of the legal and welfare systems in Scotland; it aims to combine justice and welfare for children and young people. As of 31 March 2020, 8,875 of Scotland's children were subject to a compulsory supervision order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental Health Act 1983</span> Law in England and Wales

The Mental Health Act 1983 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It covers the reception, care and treatment of mentally disordered people, the management of their property and other related matters, forming part of the mental health law for the people in England and Wales. In particular, it provides the legislation by which people diagnosed with a mental disorder can be detained in a hospital or police custody and have their disorder assessed or treated against their wishes, informally known as "sectioning". Its use is reviewed and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. The Act was significantly amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. A white paper proposing changes to the act was published in 2021 following an independent review of the act by Simon Wessely.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of England and Wales</span>

There are various levels of judiciary in England and Wales—different types of courts have different styles of judges. They also form a strict hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of the courts in which they sit, so that judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales are given more weight than district judges sitting in county courts and magistrates' courts. On 1 April 2020 there were 3,174 judges in post in England and Wales. Some judges with United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction also sit in England and Wales, particularly Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and members of the tribunals judiciary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental Health Review Tribunal of New South Wales</span>

The Mental Health Review Tribunal of New South Wales is a specialist tribunal dealing with mental health issues in New South Wales, a state of Australia. It has exclusive jurisdiction in terms of most mental health issues, although it may share jurisdiction on some issue with other courts, such as the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The tribunal came into existence on 3 September 1990.

The Mental Health Review Tribunal is a specialist tribunal established in the Northern Territory of Australia, a territory of Australia which has jurisdiction to deal with mental health issues within its boundaries. It has exclusive jurisdiction in terms of most mental health issues, although it may share jurisdiction on some issue with other courts, such as the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The tribunal came into existence in 1998 and it is located on Level 3, 9–11 Cavenagh Street, Darwin.

The Nurses and Midwives Tribunal is a former tribunal that was established in the Australian state of New South Wales which dealt with appeals and complaints of professional misconduct by nurses and midwives. The tribunal generally heard matters after the Nurses and Midwives Board has made a decision or a professional association had referred an issue to the tribunal. The tribunal heard matters in an informal manner in an attempt to do justice in the matter. The tribunal also conducted inquiries into complaints referred by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission.

The Mental Health Act Commission was an NHS special health authority that provided a safeguard for people detained in hospital under the powers of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales. Mental health care is the only part of health care where patients can be treated under compulsion, and necessarily there are very clear legal requirements on hospitals and the other services involved - primarily local authority social services. The Commission was abolished on 31 March 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribunals in the United Kingdom</span> Specialist courts in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, a tribunal is a specialist court with jurisdiction over a certain area of civil law. They are generally designed to be more informal and accessible than 'traditional' courts.

The role of approved mental health professional (AMHP) in the United Kingdom was created in the 2007 amendment of the Mental Health Act 1983 to replace the role of approved social worker (ASW). The role is broadly similar to the role of the approved social worker but is distinguished in no longer being the exclusive preserve of social workers. It can be undertaken by other professionals including registered mental health or learning disability nurses, occupational therapists and chartered psychologists after completing appropriate post-qualifying masters level training at level 7 NQF and being approved by a local authority for a period of up to five years, subject to re-warranting. An AMHP is approved to carry out functions under the Mental Health Act 1983, and as such, they carry with them a warrant card, like police officers. The role of the AMHP is to coordinate the assessment of individuals who are being considered for detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. The reason why some specialist mental health professionals are eligible to undertake this role is broadly to avoid excessive medicalisation of the assessment and treatment for individuals living with a mental disorder, as defined by section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983. It is the role of the AMHP to decide, founded on the medical recommendations of doctors, whether a person should be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Upper Tribunal</span> Superior general tribunal in the United Kingdom

The Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record and general tribunal in the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First-tier Tribunal</span> First-instance general tribunal in the United Kingdom

The First-tier Tribunal is a first-instance general tribunal in the United Kingdom.

This disability rights timeline lists events outside the United States relating to the civil rights of people with disabilities, including court decisions, the passage of legislation, activists' actions, significant abuses of people with disabilities, and the founding of various organizations. Although the disability rights movement itself began in the 1960s, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities started much earlier and continues to the present.

AH vs West London Mental Health Trust was a landmark case in England, which established a legal precedent in 2011 when Albert Laszlo Haines (AH), a patient in Broadmoor Hospital, a high security psychiatric hospital, was able to exercise a right to a fully open a public mental health review tribunal to hear his appeal for release. The case and the legal principles it affirmed have been described as opening up the secret world of tribunals and National Health Service secure units, and as having substantial ramifications for mental health professionals and solicitors, though how frequently patients will be willing or able to exercise the right is not yet clear.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health tribunal</span> Tribunal hearing for mental health treatment disputes

A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment and detention, primarily by conducting independent reviews of patients diagnosed with mental disorders who are detained in psychiatric hospitals, or under outpatient commitment, and who may be subject to involuntary treatment.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily.

References

  1. ↑ "Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales".
  2. ↑ Jewell, Amelia; Dean, Kimberlie; Fahy, Tom; Cullen, Alexis E. (17 January 2017). "Predictors of Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) outcome in a forensic inpatient population: a prospective cohort study". BMC Psychiatry. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 17 (1): 25. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-1188-8 . ISSN   1471-244X. PMC   5240431 . PMID   28095806.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.