Taylor, R (on the application of) v Haydn-Smith & Anor

Taylor, R (on the application of) v Haydn-Smith & Anor

The claimant is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, specifically persistent delusional disorder. The medical necessity for compulsory administration of antipsychotic medication has been convincingly shown. The claimant's refusal of treatment is irrational and, whether analysed as a lack of capacity or as a reason to override capacity, does not prevent compulsory treatment under section 58. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Roger Taylor; First Defendant: Dr Haydn-Smith; Second Defendant: Dr Gallimore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Medical Treatment, Capacity to Consent, Judicial Review of Medical Decisions, Article 8 ECHR, Section 58 Mental Health Act 1983
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Compulsory Medical Treatment Capacity to Consent Judicial Review of Medical Decisions Article 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Taylor

Claimant

Dr Haydn-Smith

First Defendant

Dr Gallimore

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant suffers from a mental disorder justifying compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether antipsychotic medication can be administered without the claimant's consent under section 58 of the Mental Health Act 1983
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has capacity to refuse treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, specifically persistent delusional disorder. The medical necessity for compulsory administration of antipsychotic medication has been convincingly shown. The claimant's refusal of treatment is irrational and, whether analysed as a lack of capacity or as a reason to override capacity, does not prevent compulsory treatment under section 58. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs to be assessed in detail in favour of the first defendant, subject to the usual order for publicly funded claimants