The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by M.C. after finding that her judicial review proceedings were moot following her unconditional discharge from the Central Mental Hospital (CMH). It did not decide whether the CMH Clinical Director breached statutory obligations when he declined to confirm arrangements for proposed changes to her discharge conditions.
M.C. had been conditionally discharged in August 2012 under an order that placed decisions about her residence with her treating consultant psychiatrist, in consultation with local mental health professionals and, where practicable, M.C. The order followed clinical evidence that she had made sustained progress while detained and could gradually move back into community life.
After an acute incident in June 2013, her psychiatrist directed her to move from the family home to her mother’s home and not spend time alone with her husband. M.C. later sought an absolute discharge or changes to the residence conditions so that she could decide where to live. The Review Board decided to vary the conditions, but the Clinical Director said he could not confirm that the arrangements necessary to support the proposed order were in place. He and the treating psychiatrist had raised concerns about risks associated with domestic stress and the proposed change.
The Board said it could not make the variation without the confirmation required under section 13A(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. M.C. began judicial review proceedings, seeking declarations, orders requiring the Clinical Director to act, and damages for alleged breaches of her constitutional and Convention rights. The High Court refused relief in July 2016 and held that the remaining issues were moot.
By then, the Board had granted M.C. an unconditional discharge in December 2014. She accepted that orders quashing the Clinical Director’s position or requiring him to make arrangements could no longer benefit her. Her remaining damages claim concerned an alleged disruption to family life over about six months. The Court of Appeal said that claim was too insubstantial to keep the proceedings alive, particularly because deciding it would require the court to resolve the otherwise moot statutory issue. It dismissed the appeal against the mootness finding.
The court did not reach a final conclusion on whether the Clinical Director breached section 13A. It observed that the statute gives the Board the decision on whether to vary discharge conditions and that clinicians have no veto, while also requiring confirmation from the Clinical Director about necessary arrangements. The court said the Act does not specify how to resolve a disagreement of this kind and left the section’s interpretation for a case with a live controversy.