Supreme Court of United Kingdom:  A five-Judge bench comprising Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Black, Lord Lloyd Jones, JJ. disposed of this matter.

The facts involved a patient PJ, a 47-year-old who suffered from a mild borderline learning disability, accompanied by aggressive behavior and seriously irresponsible behavior. The Mental Health Act, 1983 was so amended that it allowed patients like him to be introduced in the community with a Community Treatment Order (CTO) issued by a Responsible Clinician (RC). PJ’s contention before the Mental Health Review Tribunal was that the arrangements under CTO amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty due to excessive monitoring and boundaries. The MHRT upheld the CTO stating that the need for CTO preceded any human rights issues. The Court of Appeals stated that the restriction of movement was such that it amounted to a violation of personal liberty, however, MHRT has no power to discharge the CTO, thus the appeal lies before the Supreme Court. The Court held the CTO to be in contravention of personal liberty since the RC has no power to impose such conditions which restrict movement. The appeal was allowed.[Welsh Ministers v. PJ, [2019] 2 WLR 82, decided on 17-12-2018]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.