Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation & Ors

Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation & Ors

The imposition of the first DNACPR notice was not preceded by consultation with Mrs Tracey, who had capacity and was entitled to be involved in the decision. There was no evidence that she was consulted or agreed to the notice, and the Trust's failure to involve her was not justified. The second DNACPR notice was imposed at a time when Mrs Tracey did not wish to discuss resuscitation, and her family was consulted and agreed. The Trust's policy was not provided to the patient or family, and national guidance was lacking. The process for the first notice was procedurally deficient and not compliant with the requirements of law and the Trust's own policy.

Parties
Claimant: David Tracey; First Defendant: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Health; Interested Party: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Human Rights Claim / Judgment After Factual Hearing
Outcome
Findings of fact made; legal issues to be determined at a subsequent hearing based on these findings and further submissions.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, End of Life Decisions, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (dnacpr), Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Mental Capacity Act 2005
Public Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Judicial Review End of Life Decisions Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (dnacpr) Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Tracey

Claimant

Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Second Defendant

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Human Rights Claim / Judgment After Factual Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of DNACPR notices on Janet Tracey was lawful under domestic and ECHR law
  2. 2 Whether there was adequate consultation with the patient and family prior to DNACPR decisions
  3. 3 Whether the Trust had and operated a lawful and accessible DNACPR policy

Ratio Decidendi

The imposition of the first DNACPR notice was not preceded by consultation with Mrs Tracey, who had capacity and was entitled to be involved in the decision. There was no evidence that she was consulted or agreed to the notice, and the Trust's failure to involve her was not justified. The second DNACPR notice was imposed at a time when Mrs Tracey did not wish to discuss resuscitation, and her family was consulted and agreed. The Trust's policy was not provided to the patient or family, and national guidance was lacking. The process for the first notice was procedurally deficient and not compliant with the requirements of law and the Trust's own policy.

Court Disposition

Findings of fact made; legal issues to be determined at a subsequent hearing based on these findings and further submissions.