header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008 / Dr Srikanth Nimmagadda , Dr Chris Jones
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Misrepresentation

Public bodies are too often represented by unqualified people say Dr Chris Jones and Dr Srikanth Nimmagadda

Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) proceedings are proceedings of the High Court that determine the liberty of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983). There are usually two parties to the proceedings: the patient and the “responsible authority”—the managers of the NHS trust or private hospital in which the patient is detained. Patients are usually represented by a lawyer specialising in mental health law. In contrast, legal representation for the hospital is rare. Generally the responsible medical officer (RMO)—the consultant in charge of the patient’s treatment—represents the hospital. This is no longer automatically the case (see R (on application of Care NHS Trust) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 1182 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 120 (May)), but it remains common. Consultant psychiatrists receive no specific training in the responsibilities arising from this role, although many gain considerable practical experience of the proceedings. Similarly, psychiatrists have no training in the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll