Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales

Abstract

The function of the mental health review tribunal is defined in Part V of the Mental Health Act 1983. Together with statute and Common Law, it provides safeguards to those detained under the Act. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have strengthened these safeguards. The key articles in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act are 5(1)(e), relating to the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind; 5(4), providing that the lawfulness of such detention shall be decided speedily by a court; 6, providing for a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; and 8, establishing the right to respect for a private and family life. The latter is relevant to disclosure, nearest relatives' rights, and treatment.

The simulated mental health review tribunal – a valuable training tool for senior house officers?

“…The decisions of the tribunals are influenced greatly by the recommendations of the responsible medical officer (RMO) or their representative (Shah & Oyebode, 1996). Since 2001, the burden of proof has also shifted from the patient to the responsible authority in tribunals (Lodge, 2005).…”

Stakeholders' views of legal and advice services for people admitted to psychiatric hospital

“…Delays or late withdrawal of cases tend to disrupt the operation of Tribunals (Taylor et al 1999;Mayor 2002;Crossley 2004;MHC 2008). Questions also arise about how decisions made by Tribunals may be too focused much on considerations of public safety at the expense of patients' rights, and there has been debate about the sometimes contradictory role of the medical member (Richardson and Machin 2000;Rooth 2001;Coid and Maden 2003;Lodge 2005). Some researchers have revealed wide variations in procedure and professional decision-making during Tribunals (Peay 2003;Perkins 2003), as well as the quality of subsequent reports (Eagleson and Hunter 2002;O'Muirithe and Shankar, 2008).…”

“…It has been suggested that Tribunal decisions should be based on a broader understanding of mental health needs, be supported by a more systematic use of witnesses, and that more adequate training for MHRT staff is necessary (Eastman 1995;Mayor 2002;Naeem et al 2007). Increasingly Tribunals have to be mindful of the requirements of the Human Rights Act (Macgregor-Morris et al 2001;Bindman et al 2003;Davidson et al 2003;Lodge 2005). Given these concerns, it is hardly surprising that some commentators have called for the better protection of the legal rights, and adequate treatment and support services for patients facing involuntary civil commitment (Ferencz and Maguire 2000;Macgregor-Morris et al 2001;Mayor 2002).…”

Consultant psychiatrists' knowledge of their role as representatives of the responsible authority at mental health review tribunals

“…The responsible medical officer is not only a crucial witness of fact and of opinion (Wood, 1998;Lodge, 2005), presenting the justification for continuing detention, but also, as representative of the responsible authority, has an important role in testing the strength of argument and evidence advanced in favour of discharge. The person representing the responsible authority needs to have good knowledge of the Mental Health Act and the MHRT rules, the rules of evidence applicable to the Tribunal's proceedings, the relevant case law and the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, so as to represent the interests of the authority.…”