MENTAL HEALTH
Decision by doctors to administer compulsory treatment to convicted mental patient - patient seeking judicial review - doctors to be required to attend to give evidenceR (Wilkinson) v Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital and others: CA (Lords Justice Simon Brown, Brooke and Hale): 22 October 2001The claimant's responsible medical officer decided that the claimant, a convicted mental patient compulsorily detained at a secure hospital, should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, pursuant to sections 63 and 58(3)(b)(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983.Another doctor was appointed to provide the necessary second opinion certificate under section 58(3)(b).
On the claimant's application for judicial review of their decision to administer the treatment, he was refused an order that both doctors together with his own medical expert should attend the hearing to give evidence and be cross-examined.
He appealed.Paul Bowen (instructed by Scott-Moncrieff, Harbour & Sinclair) for the claimant.
Edward Fitzgerald QC and Phillippa Kaufmann (instructed by Reid Minty) for the responsible medical officer.
Nigel Pleming QC and Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the other doctor.
Jennifer Richards (instructed by the Solicitor, Departments of Health and Social Security) for the Secretary of State for Health, as interested party.Held, allowing the appeal, that where a decision to administer medical treatment to a mental patient without his consent under section 58(3)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1983 was challenged by way of judicial review, the court was entitled to reach its own view as to the merits of the medical decision and whether it infringed the patient's human rights; and that in such a case the patient was entitled to require the attendance of medical witnesses for cross-examination.
(WLR)
No comments yet