Maher, R (On the Application Of) v First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) & Ors [2023] EWHC 34 (Admin) (13 January 2023)

Maher, R (On the Application Of) v First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) & Ors [2023] EWHC 34 (Admin) (13 January 2023)

The Tribunal did not operate an unlawful blanket policy; it exercised discretion in the Further Decision and applied the correct legal test. The refusal to provide reasons, permit a victim personal statement, or allow review did not breach Article 8/14 ECHR, as the difference in treatment between FTT and Parole Board processes is justified by the statutory framework, privacy requirements, and nature of mental health cases. Victims are not parties to FTT proceedings and have no right to reasons or to submit a VPS. The Tribunal's approach is lawful.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 34 (Admin)
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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Victims' Rights, Disclosure of Reasons, Conditional Discharge, Discrimination Under ECHR, Tribunal Procedure, Victim Personal Statement
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Victims' Rights Disclosure of Reasons Conditional Discharge Discrimination Under ECHR Tribunal Procedure +1 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Tier Tribunal operated an unlawful blanket policy of refusing reasons to victims
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to permit a Victim Personal Statement breached Article 8/14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the inability to request a review breached Article 8/14 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not operate an unlawful blanket policy; it exercised discretion in the Further Decision and applied the correct legal test. The refusal to provide reasons, permit a victim personal statement, or allow review did not breach Article 8/14 ECHR, as the difference in treatment between FTT and Parole Board processes is justified by the statutory framework, privacy requirements, and nature of mental health cases. Victims are not parties to FTT proceedings and have no right to reasons or to submit a VPS. The Tribunal's approach is lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission refused on grounds 2, 3, 4 and 6
  • No declarations of unlawfulness granted