Search results

A patient may be detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (HM Government, 1983) only if his nearest relative does not object. Whether an objection has been made will be a question for the approved mental health professional (AMHP) concerned, but their answer will have to be a reasonable one. If the belief of the AMHP is not reasonable, a patient's section 3 admission will be unlawful. That does not mean, however, that the AMHP's conduct will necessarily be negligent, or that the patient will be entitled to damages.

Vulnerable adults have recently gained greater protection. A lot of attention has focused on the effect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, but many significant provisions can be found elsewhere. It may be that those provisions, and the possibilities they introduce, are not fully understood by those who could make the best use of them. That would be unfortunate. Where it enjoys powers for adult protection purposes, a public authority might have to explain any failure to use them, particularly where that failure has unfortunate consequences. This paper does not deal directly with the law on adult social care. Nor even, in general terms, does it describe the law relating to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. It does, however, discuss some of the more significant adult protection provisions and in the process, refers to the No Secrets guidance, which was published in 2000 and remains the chief resource for adult protection work. (Department of Health & Home Office, 2000).

The nearest relative of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (HM Government, 1983) has an important role to play. S/he might even object to detention, and in some circumstances, any such objection will have to be respected and the patient cannot lawfully be detained. A recent High Court case examined what it means to object to detention. The judge said that although a nearest relative might be believed not to have objected, detention will only be lawful if that belief was reasonable. He also suggested that in some cases, objection should be inferred from a nearest relative's previous conduct.

There is to be a National Care Service. It has become necessary because the number of older and/or disabled people in England and Wales will rise dramatically over the next four decades; and because social care law is currently complex, contradictory and confusing. The legal framework will have to change if problems, and costs, are to be minimised.

A recent Law Commission paper claims that the law on adult social care is complex and based on outdated concepts, and therefore needs to be reformed. The boundary between health care and social care services is less clear than it once was, but its existence can be damaging to service users. Although there is good evidence of integrated working, more needs to be done. Existing duties could be consolidated, or health care and social care bodies ‐ and perhaps others ‐ could be placed under a general duty to co‐operate.

The purpose of this paper is to explain a decision of the Court of Appeal about the duty an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) will sometimes have to consult a patient's nearest relative, and to set that decision in the context of an earlier one.

Each decision is examined in detail and one is compared with the other. Reference is made to the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice.

It will be harder for an AMHP to establish that consultation is not reasonably practicable, and it will be correspondingly easier, in some cases, for a nearest relative to obtain information about a patient or achieve proximity to her.

This is thought to be the first time the two cases have been considered together or in their true context.

This paper aims to consider the recent consultation on a new safeguarding power of entry and seeks to provide a critique of the government's conclusions in that regard.

The paper analyses the report of the consultation exercise and sets it against those of earlier, comparable ones.

The government's conclusions were supported by only a minority of respondents. A majority of respondents, and an overwhelming majority of health and social care professionals, came to a very different conclusion.

This is believed to be the first time the government's conclusions have been analysed in this way or placed in their present context.