"N", R (on the application of) v Doctor "M" & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1789 (06 December 2002)

"N", R (on the application of) v Doctor "M" & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1789 (06 December 2002)

The court held that the judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of doctors whose opinions had been tested by cross-examination, particularly the claimant's long-term RMO, and that the medical necessity for the proposed treatment had been convincingly shown. The existence of a responsible body of medical opinion against the treatment did not preclude a finding of medical necessity. The judge applied the correct legal test and conducted a full review, satisfying Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1789
Parties
Appellant/claimant: THE QUEEN on the APPLICATION of "N"; Respondent/defendant: DOCTOR "M" and OTHERS; Respondent: Third Respondent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent to Medical Treatment, Capacity, Best Interests, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review, Cross Examination in Judicial Review
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Consent to Medical Treatment Capacity Best Interests Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +3 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN on the APPLICATION of "N"

Appellant/claimant

DOCTOR "M" and OTHERS

Respondent/defendant

Third Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether forced administration of anti-psychotic medication to a non-consenting patient is lawful under the Mental Health Act 1983 and compatible with Articles 3, 6, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the claimant lacked capacity to consent to treatment
  3. 3 Whether the proposed treatment was in the claimant's best interests and medically necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of doctors whose opinions had been tested by cross-examination, particularly the claimant's long-term RMO, and that the medical necessity for the proposed treatment had been convincingly shown. The existence of a responsible body of medical opinion against the treatment did not preclude a finding of medical necessity. The judge applied the correct legal test and conducted a full review, satisfying Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission for forced administration of depot anti-psychotic medication upheld
  • No breach of Articles 3, 6, or 8 ECHR found