The High Court has refused an application by JF to quash a Mental Health Tribunal decision affirming an involuntary admission order under the Mental Health Act 2001.
The tribunal affirmed the order on 2 January 2018. The judicial review challenged that decision on three grounds: that the application for admission had already been refused; that the consultant psychiatrist’s examination did not take place “as soon as may be”; and that the tribunal had not adequately explained why procedural failures did not affect the order or cause injustice.
The case became moot after the tribunal decision was superseded by a renewal order. On 24 January, the court nevertheless allowed the hearing to proceed, citing a novel legal point and the limited opportunity to raise it before the renewal order. The judge retained discretion to revisit that decision.
JF’s mother made the admission application on 8 December 2017, and a general practitioner made a recommendation that day. The mother brought both documents to the approved centre on 10 December. The applicant argued that the on-call consultant psychiatrist had decided to pursue community treatment, thereby refusing an admission order and exhausting the application. The respondent said there was no such recorded decision: the nurse’s visit the following day was intended to assess whether community treatment was workable.
The judge held that a refusal under section 14(1) could arise only after the required examination. Even assuming that interpretation was wrong, the evidence did not show that the consultant had made a final decision to abandon the process. The court found that the nurse’s visit was a fact-finding step and that there was no evidence the consultant had abandoned an intention to examine JF.
The judge also rejected the timing challenge. JF was brought to the centre on the evening of 12 December and examined at 2pm on 13 December. The court said “as soon as may be” must be assessed in context, including the person’s best interests and any risk to others. It found that JF posed no risk to himself or others on 11 December, that his liberty was not interfered with that day, and that the clinical engagement was reasonable and proportionate. The examination was therefore carried out within the statutory requirement.
The remaining complaint concerned errors in the application and recommendation forms and the tribunal’s reasons for excusing them. The judge described the irregularities as immaterial, noted that the applicant’s counsel accepted they could be excused under the Act, and treated the issue as moot. The court refused all the reliefs sought. It did not quash the tribunal decision or grant the declarations requested.