N, R (on the application of) v M & Ors [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin) (24 September 2002)

N, R (on the application of) v M & Ors [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin) (24 September 2002)

The claimant does not have the capacity to give consent to the proposed treatment because her delusional beliefs and lack of objective judgment prevent her from weighing information and making an informed choice. The evidence establishes that she is suffering from a psychotic illness. The SOAD's procedure, while not allowing full representations, was remedied by the court's own fact-finding and cross-examination, satisfying Article 6 ECHR. The statutory and Convention requirements for forcible treatment are met.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: N; First Defendant: Dr. M; Second Defendant: A Health Authority Trust; Third Defendant: Dr. O
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing With Cross Examination
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Consent to Medical Treatment, Forcible Administration of Medication, Procedural Fairness in SOAD Process, Articles 3 and 8 ECHR, Section 58 Mental Health Act 1983
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Capacity to Consent to Medical Treatment Forcible Administration of Medication Procedural Fairness in SOAD Process Articles 3 and 8 ECHR Section 58 Mental Health Act 1983

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N

Claimant

Dr. M

First Defendant

A Health Authority Trust

Second Defendant

Dr. O

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing With Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has capacity to consent to anti-psychotic treatment under section 58(3)(b) Mental Health Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is suffering from a psychotic illness justifying treatment
  3. 3 Whether the SOAD's procedure and decision breached Articles 3 and/or 8 ECHR or was otherwise unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant does not have the capacity to give consent to the proposed treatment because her delusional beliefs and lack of objective judgment prevent her from weighing information and making an informed choice. The evidence establishes that she is suffering from a psychotic illness. The SOAD's procedure, while not allowing full representations, was remedied by the court's own fact-finding and cross-examination, satisfying Article 6 ECHR. The statutory and Convention requirements for forcible treatment are met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted for administration of depot anti-psychotic medication to the claimant under section 58(3)(b) Mental Health Act 1983
  • Interim undertaking by defendants not to administer medication without court permission is discharged