V, R (on the application of) v London Borough Croydon & Anor

V, R (on the application of) v London Borough Croydon & Anor

The decision by the approved mental health professional to dispense with consultation with the claimant's nearest relative before making the Section 3 application was plainly wrong on the facts as known or believed by her. There was no reasonable basis to conclude that consultation would have caused unreasonable delay, especially as she believed the claimant would remain lawfully detained until later that day. The detention was therefore unlawful and the writ of habeas corpus must issue.

Parties
Claimant: V; First Defendant: South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: London Borough Croydon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Habeas Corpus / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; writ of habeas corpus granted
Legal Topics
Detention Under Mental Health Act, Consultation With Nearest Relative, Rectification of Statutory Forms, Judicial Review Standards
Mental Health Law Administrative Law Human Rights Detention Under Mental Health Act Consultation With Nearest Relative Rectification of Statutory Forms Judicial Review Standards

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V

Claimant

South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

London Borough Croydon

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Habeas Corpus / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of the claimant under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful given the failure to consult the nearest relative before making the application
  2. 2 Whether the decision to dispense with consultation was justified as avoiding unreasonable delay under Section 11(4)
  3. 3 Whether errors in the statutory forms could be rectified under Section 15

Ratio Decidendi

The decision by the approved mental health professional to dispense with consultation with the claimant's nearest relative before making the Section 3 application was plainly wrong on the facts as known or believed by her. There was no reasonable basis to conclude that consultation would have caused unreasonable delay, especially as she believed the claimant would remain lawfully detained until later that day. The detention was therefore unlawful and the writ of habeas corpus must issue.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; writ of habeas corpus granted

Orders

  • Writ of habeas corpus issued for the claimant's release
  • First defendant to pay 75% of the claimant's costs, to be assessed if not agreed