R sessay v south london and maudsley nhs foundation trust

The officers did not have a warrant, nor the assistance of an approved mental health professional or a doctor.

The aim is to diagnose illness more effectively and much earlier, assess which treatments will work best for an individual and then tailor the care they receive accordingly.

The Ladywell Unit, located at University Hospital Lewisham, was refurbished for use by adult inpatient mental health services. Officers must follow the safeguards in PACE to protect vulnerable people and children. MS highlights the awkward position the police are placed in when psychiatric services fail to take over the care of a person who has been detained at a police station under s.

They provide, as relevant, as follows: Staff must always consider whether they should exercise their powers to search before placing a detainee in a vehicle. In Rigg, the principal problem was that officers at the scene did not recognise he was suffering from a mental illness.

Officers should enter any instance of the use of a Taser on an individual and the fact that an information leaflet has been provided in their custody record and use of force form.

In relying on a power to detain the Claimant under s of the Mental Health Act which they did not in fact have, the hospital unlawfully detained her, and it was irrelevant that there were alternative powers under s2 and s4 of the Mental Health Act that they might otherwise have used; 5.

Documenting decisions Officers must document the decision-making process on the custody record and include the reason for the search, those present during the search, those conducting the search and a record of any items found or seized. Sections 5 and 6 of the Mental Capacity Act do not confer on police officers authority to remove persons to hospital or other places of safety for the purposes set out in sections and of the Mental Health Act Conclusion The facts of MS betray a wider, systemic problem.

If appropriate control measures are not available or possible, it must not be used. The Claimant's challenge to the hospital's policy for the admission of patients failed; 7.

The 'Automated MRI' software automatically compares or benchmarks someone's brain scan image against others, each showing varying stages of Alzheimer's disease. Section 54 of PACE provides a power to search an arrested person on arrival at a police station.

It appeared that the AMHP had been given the wrong information by nursing staff on arrival at the ward. By s 4 such leave was not required as against the First Defendant.

Neither s nor s MHA was engaged.

Detention and custody

Officers must provide a detainee with alternative clothing if their own clothing is wet, as they may be at risk from hypothermia.

Wyn Williams J, hearing the substantive application on 5 Februaryfocussed on the first of the four grounds of complaint, i.

The team at the Centre are working towards 'personalised medicine' — developing treatments based on individual need. A person can only be deprived of liberty by the MCA where i the deprivation is authorised by an order of the Court of Protection under s.

England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

This was undertaken and it was advised that MS be admitted to hospital, but a bed could not immediately be found. However, this should not prevent the police from relying on s5 and s6 MCA to justify taking a mentally incapacitated person to hospital for a different purpose.

His behaviour deteriorated over the course of the day: Where a detainee is taken directly to a hospital under section of the Mental Health Actor for any other medical reason the doctor taking charge of the patient at the hospital must be told that a Taser has been discharged on the detainee.

Overview The Claimant, a 24 year old Sierre Leone national 23 at the time of the events in disputebrought proceedings against the Defendants claiming declarations and damages for unlawful detention on 7 August, Where the removal of menstrual products are considered necessary as part of a self-harm or suicide risk, it should be subject to further specific risk assessment.

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

If the person is detained in a cell, they should be monitored and observed according to the risk assessment, ie, at level 3 constant supervision or level 4 close proximity. Is the sealant intact?

When the purpose of taking someone suffering from a mental disorder to a place of safety is to secure an assessment under the MHA or to make other arrangements for her treatment or care, the only coercive powers which can be relied upon are s and s MHA. Cell searches Officers must visually inspect and search all cells and detention rooms on release of a detainee and before new occupancy, to ensure that: The BRC's development of an advanced computer programme to accurately detect the early signs of Alzheimer's disease from a routine clinical brain scan was reported in the media in R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [] Med LR DIVISIONAL COURT Before Lord Justice PITCHFORD, and Mr Justice SUPPERSTONE.

The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, also known as SLaM, is an NHS foundation trust based in London, England, which specialises in mental health. R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [] EWHC (QB) The police entered the claimant's private accommodation, unaccompanied and without a s warrant, purporting to be acting under ss 5 - 6 MCA in her best interests; she was taken to hospital and, after a hour delay in the s suite, detained under s2 MHA.

We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. Other recent cases, particularly in R (Sessay) v (1) South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2) Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [] EWHC (QB) and the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in MS v UK (/08 () ECHR ), further highlight some of the difficulties faced by the police in dealing with people.

AM v (1) South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust & (2) The Secretary of State for Health.

Medical Law Reports

I agree with the point made by the SSH to Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs that my references to the MHA having primacy in J v Foundation Trust were made in and should be confined to the application of Case E in that case.

R sessay v south london and maudsley nhs foundation trust
Rated 5/5 based on 36 review