May 2019
« Jul    

G v Scottish Ministers and Another; SC 18 Dec 2013

References: [2013] UKSC 79, 2014 SCLR 415, 2014 SC (UKSC) 84, 2014 SLT 247, UKSC 2012/0196
Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Coram: Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
The 2003 Act had been intended to make provision for those who had been in long term mental health carse, but would not need such continued are but were not either ready to survive without continuing support in the community. The claimant had been convicted of serious sexual and violent offences and detained under a restriction order. The review Tribunal had decided he was ready for consideration for release from Carstairs a high security hospitale. He continued to pose some risk of sexual violence towards women and the best way of managing it could only be determined once he had undertaken and completed satisfactorily a course of psychological treatment for sexual offending. The psychology department at Carstairs was best placed to deliver this treatment, and the tribunal was concerned that G was less likely to engage in it in a medium secure hospital. Consequently, there was a significant risk that he would become trapped in the medium secure system. The risk he posed meant he would need to be subject to greater restrictions on his movements in a medium secure hospital than at Carstairs unless and until he completed the necessary treatment, which could take 12 to 18 months. There was a significant risk of consequential mental health problems. The tribunal found that it was of maximum benefit to G that he remain at Carstairs.
Held: His appeal failed. the tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion that they did and that therefore this appeal must be dismissed. Section 264 created a two stage process where risk remained in issue at both stages. Though the tribunal appeared not to have understood the significance of the first stage, on the facts, the correct decision had been made.
Statutes: Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 264(2)
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – G v Decision of The Mental Welfare Tribunal SCS (Bailii, [2011] ScotCS CSIH_55, 2011 SCLR 770, [2011] CSIH 55, 2011 GWD 29-638, [2011] MHLR 387, 2012 SC 138)
    The Inner House considered the circumstances in which it may be appropriate, as a matter of law, for the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to pronounce no order for arrangements to be made for the transfer of a patient detained in the State . .
  • Too Strong – Lothian Health Board v BM, Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland ScSf (ScotC, Bailii, [2007] ScotSC 15, 2007 SCLR 478)
    The availability of accommodation in a medium secure hospital where the patient could be detained in appropriate conditions, including appropriate facilities for treatment, can never be relevant to the question whether an order should be made under . .
  • Cited – Ashingdane v Department of Health and Social Security ([1981] CLY 175)
    Mr Ashingdane was a Broadmoor patient who was deemed ready for transfer back into his local hospital, but was denied a bed there because the nurses’ trade union operated a ban on taking special hospital patients. He launched proceedings against the . .
  • Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR (8225/78, (1985) 7 EHRR 528, Bailii, [1985] ECHR 8, ECHR, 14/1983/70/106, Bailii, [1985] ECHR 8)
    The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
  • Cited – City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals) HL (Gazette 05-Nov-97, Times 31-Oct-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 38, [1997] 1 WLR 1447, [1998] 1 All ER 174, 1998 SC (HL) 33)
    The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
  • Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 49, [2007] 3 WLR 832, Times 15-Nov-07, [2008] 1 AC 678)
    The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
  • Cited – MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 49, UKSC 2010/0114, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary, [2011] 2 All ER 65)
    The asylum applicant had been found to have lied to exaggerate the risk of persecution if he was returned to Somalia. The Court was now asked as to the relevance of that finding, and as to the legitimacy of an appeal court interfering with the . .

Last Update: 02-Oct-15 Ref: 552329

Leave a Reply