R (B) v Haddock [2005] EWHC 921 (Admin) (20 May 2005)

R (B) v Haddock [2005] EWHC 921 (Admin) (20 May 2005)

The claimant is suffering from a mental disorder for which anti-psychotic medication is convincingly shown to be necessary and likely to alleviate his condition. The claimant lacks capacity to refuse treatment. The statutory safeguards under the Mental Health Act 1983 were met, and the treatment does not breach the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 921 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: R (B); First Defendant: Dr A Haddock; Second Defendant: Dr J Rigby; Third Defendant: Dr Wood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent to Medical Treatment, Capacity to Consent, Forcible Medical Treatment, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Mental Health Act 1983, Role of SOAD, Judicial Review of Medical Decisions
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Consent to Medical Treatment Capacity to Consent Forcible Medical Treatment Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (B)

Claimant

Dr A Haddock

First Defendant

Dr J Rigby

Second Defendant

Dr Wood

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is suffering from a mental disorder justifying detention and treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has capacity to refuse consent to anti-psychotic medication
  3. 3 Whether the proposed treatment is necessary and likely to be effective

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is suffering from a mental disorder for which anti-psychotic medication is convincingly shown to be necessary and likely to alleviate his condition. The claimant lacks capacity to refuse treatment. The statutory safeguards under the Mental Health Act 1983 were met, and the treatment does not breach the claimant's rights under the ECHR.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review is dismissed
  • No order for the SOAD to appear or be represented unless specific error of law is alleged