Kamara, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 17 (18th February, 2000)

Kamara, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 17 (18th February, 2000)

The statutory criteria in section 41 were met; there is a real risk of serious harm to the public if the appellant fails to take medication, and a restriction order is necessary to protect the public.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Crim 17
Parties
Appellant: James Kamara; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restriction Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restriction Orders, Hospital Orders, Protection of Public From Serious Harm
Mental Health Law Criminal Law Restriction Orders Hospital Orders Protection of Public From Serious Harm

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kamara

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restriction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory criteria in section 41 were met; there is a real risk of serious harm to the public if the appellant fails to take medication, and a restriction order is necessary to protect the public.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 upheld