TW v Enfield Borough Council
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE CLARKE
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Mental Health Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
TW's appeal was granted, allowing her to bring proceedings against Enfield. Enfield's ASW had not consulted TW's father before detainment, claiming it was not 'reasonably practicable'. The ruling emphasized balancing TW's Article 5 and 8 rights under the ECHR.
Judgment
Lord Justice Aikens :
I. A Synopsis and the Issue on this appeal.
The appellant, whom I will call TW, suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (“OCD”). On 29 June 2007 an Approved Social Worker (“ASW”) employed by Enfield Borough Council (“Enfield”) made an application for TW’s compulsory admission to hospital, pursuant to section 13(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the MHA 1983”). Under the version of the MHA 1983 then in force the ASW was obliged, pursuant to At the time of these events the applicable version of the MHA 1983 was that before it was amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. The effect of the relevant principal provisions applicable remain substantially the same after the amendments by the 2007 Act. sections 13(5) and 11(4), to consult the person appearing to be the “nearest relative” of the patient before making this application. That person was TW’s father. In fact, TW’s father was not consulted before the application. This was because the ASW had decided that (in the wording of The term “nearest relative” is defined in section 26 of the MHA 1983 section 11(4) ), “such consultation [was] not reasonably practicable or would involve unreasonable delay”.
There is no challenge to the judgment of the medical professionals about the wisdom of having TW admitted to hospital on 29 June 2007, given her mental condition and her circumstances at the time. However, TW did not wish to be admitted, nor did she wish her family to be consulted by the medical team about this or even given details of her condition by them. There was evidence that if TW learned that her family had been given details that would cause her great distress and might damage her health.
Members of the medical team and some police officers arrived at TW’s flat on 29 June 2007. TW would not let them in and she refused, to go to hospital. The police broke into her flat and she was forcibly removed to Chase Farm Hospital for treatment. TW was detained there for 77 days until released by order of the Mental Health Review Tribunal following an application by her father.
On 28 June 2008 TW issued proceedings against a number of parties, including Enfield in its capacity as employer of the ASW who had made the application that TW be admitted to hospital and who had also made the decision that it was not reasonably practicable to consult TW’s father before making that application. The claim is for damages for unlawful detention and psychiatric injury. Enfield took two poi