Taylor, R (on the application of) v Haydn-Smith & Anor [2005] EWHC 1668 (Admin) (27 May 2005)

Taylor, R (on the application of) v Haydn-Smith & Anor [2005] EWHC 1668 (Admin) (27 May 2005)

The claimant is suffering from persistent delusional disorder, medication is medically necessary, and the statutory requirements for compulsory treatment under section 58 Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied. The claimant's objection is irrational and does not prevent lawful administration of treatment without consent.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1668 (Admin)
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
Consent to Medical Treatment, Capacity, Compulsory Medication, Mental Health Act 1983, Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Consent to Medical Treatment Capacity Compulsory Medication Mental Health Act 1983 Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR

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 3 Authorities cited 7 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 compulsory administration of antipsychotic medication without consent is lawful under Mental Health Act 1983 section 58
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffers from a mental disorder justifying detention and treatment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has capacity to consent to treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is suffering from persistent delusional disorder, medication is medically necessary, and the statutory requirements for compulsory treatment under section 58 Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied. The claimant's objection is irrational and does not prevent lawful administration of treatment without consent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of costs in favour of first defendant, subject to usual order as claimant is publicly funded
  • Claimant granted seven days after receipt of transcript to apply for leave to appeal in writing