B v Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital & Ors

B v Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital & Ors

The court held that the Mental Health Act 1983 authorises compulsory treatment of detained patients regardless of capacity, provided the statutory criteria are met. The claimant lacked capacity to refuse treatment. Even if he had capacity, a capacitated refusal is not determinative under the MHA. The proposed treatment was convincingly shown to be a therapeutic or medical necessity and did not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR. The statutory test is compatible with the Convention. All grounds for judicial review were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the application of 'B'; First Defendant: Dr. S. S, Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital; Second Defendant: Dr. G, Second Opinion Appointed Doctor; Third Defendant: Secretary of State for the Department of Health
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Medical Treatment, Capacity to Consent, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Mental Health Act 1983, Best Interests, Judicial Review of Medical Decisions
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Compulsory Medical Treatment Capacity to Consent Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Mental Health Act 1983 +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the application of 'B'

Claimant

Dr. S. S, Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital

First Defendant

Dr. G, Second Opinion Appointed Doctor

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for the Department of Health

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compulsory medical treatment can be lawfully administered to a detained patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 who refuses consent and claims capacity
  2. 2 Whether the statutory test under section 58 MHA is compatible with Articles 3 and 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the patient's refusal is a capacitated refusal and its legal effect

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Mental Health Act 1983 authorises compulsory treatment of detained patients regardless of capacity, provided the statutory criteria are met. The claimant lacked capacity to refuse treatment. Even if he had capacity, a capacitated refusal is not determinative under the MHA. The proposed treatment was convincingly shown to be a therapeutic or medical necessity and did not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR. The statutory test is compatible with the Convention. All grounds for judicial review were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All grounds for judicial review are dismissed
  • The injunction granted by Silber J on 4 October 2004 is discharged