Teresa Maher, R (on the application of) v First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) & Ors

Teresa Maher, R (on the application of) v First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) & Ors

The FTT unlawfully fettered its discretion by operating a blanket policy of refusing to provide reasons or a gist of reasons for conditional discharge decisions to victims, as evidenced by the First Decision. The Further Decision did not cure this unlawfulness, as it failed to properly balance the open justice principle against privacy rights, did not adequately consider less intrusive measures such as providing a redacted gist, and did not provide sufficient reasons. The refusal to allow Ms Maher to submit a VPS or request reconsideration was objectively justified due to the clinical nature of FTT proceedings and the statutory framework. The differential treatment in relation to reasons...

Parties
Claimant: Teresa Maher; First Defendant: First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health); Second Defendant: The Lord Chancellor; Third Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: Richard Wilson-Michael
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declarations of unlawfulness granted in respect of reasons, but not in respect of VPS or reconsideration rights.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Victims' Rights, Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14, Mental Health Tribunal Procedure, Disclosure of Reasons, Victim Personal Statement (vps), Judicial Review
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Open Justice Victims' Rights Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14 Mental Health Tribunal Procedure Disclosure of Reasons +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teresa Maher

Claimant

First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health)

First Defendant

The Lord Chancellor

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Third Defendant

Richard Wilson-Michael

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) unlawfully fettered its discretion by operating a blanket policy of refusing to provide reasons for conditional discharge decisions to victims
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to provide reasons or a gist of reasons for the conditional discharge decision to the victim was unlawful and discriminatory under Article 8/14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to permit the victim to submit a Victim Personal Statement (VPS) was unlawful and discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The FTT unlawfully fettered its discretion by operating a blanket policy of refusing to provide reasons or a gist of reasons for conditional discharge decisions to victims, as evidenced by the First Decision. The Further Decision did not cure this unlawfulness, as it failed to properly balance the open justice principle against privacy rights, did not adequately consider less intrusive measures such as providing a redacted gist, and did not provide sufficient reasons. The refusal to allow Ms Maher to submit a VPS or request reconsideration was objectively justified due to the clinical nature of FTT proceedings and the statutory framework. The differential treatment in relation to reasons...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declarations of unlawfulness granted in respect of reasons, but not in respect of VPS or reconsideration rights.

Orders

  • Declaration that the FTT's failure to provide reasons or a gist of reasons for the conditional discharge decision was unlawful and discriminatory under Article 8/14 ECHR.
  • Declaration that the Further Decision was also unlawful.