The Round-up 16-3-2020

16 March 2020 by

The worsening of the Covid-19 pandemic seemed to relegate all other business to a position of relative insignificance this week. Undoubtedly  the human, economic and social cost of the outbreak is already severe, with its impact increasingly felt across the globe. However, perhaps more than any other conceivable event, the progression of the disease casts a spotlight on numerous areas of legal controversy. It is hard to recall a post-war phenomenon which so frequently pits the rights and interests of individuals against those of broader society (more here). Indeed, the potential material for upcoming pupillage interview questions seems virtually inexhaustible, assuming that they too don’t fall victim to social distancing measures.

I will be posting a longer article on Covid-19 later today.

For the time being in the UK, however, it was business as usual in the courts. Returning to the Mental Health Act theme, the week saw judgment in the case of A Healthcare B NHS Trust v CC [2020] EWHC 574 (Fam) (11 March 2020). The case saw care providers seek confirmation from the court that providing dialysis under sedation to a non-compliant patient detained under s 3 MHA 1983 for his psychiatric condition fell within the scope of treatment permitted by the Act. It is noteworthy that the gentleman, when well, appears to give informed consent to his dialysis, but often withdraws such consent when his mental health deteriorates. 

Counsel for the patient submitted that for section 63 to apply, the primary purpose of the treatment must be to treat the mental disorder. This would appear to be reflected in the wording of s 63  and would disqualify his dialysis treatment, which is administered for renal failure, rather than his mental disorder:

The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the [approved clinician in charge of the treatment].

The judge however rejected this submission, holding that it was sufficient for the proposed treatment to alleviate a manifestation of his mental disorder. As his renal failure was likely contributed to by his poor mental health, it was permissible to administer his dialysis under the provisions of s63. Whilst potentially a common-sense decision on the facts, the interpretation appears significantly to extend  the scope of s63 beyond its natural reading, permitting doctors to administer treatments not just for mental disorders, but also for physical disorders worsened by the effects of any such disorder. 

In other cases this week:

  • Uddin v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 338 (12 March 2020) – In a judgment with more than a hint of suggestion about how a reconstituted First-tier Tribunal may wish to proceed, the Court of Appeal overturned the previous judgments of the immigration tribunals to uphold the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse leave to remain to a young Bangladeshi man who reportedly was brought to the UK as an orphan aged 13. The case gave rise to issues about how such an individual’s relationships with foster carers should be interpreted in light of Article 8 ECHR. 

On the UK Human Rights Blog:

  • Shaheen Rahman QC considers the question of whether a person subject to a home curfew under immigration powers had been falsely imprisoned at common law and its interplay with the concept of deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR – read here;
  • Rafe Jennings discusses the new Environment Bill 2020 – click here.

On Law Pod UK:

  • Emma-Louise Fenelon discusses the ongoing status of EU law in the UK as the country moves towards the end of the Brexit transition period – here

Lastly, in other news:

  • Baroness Hale spoke at the launch event for Women in Family Law. The network has been set up to connect, encourage and promote professional women across the field of family law in England and Wales.
  • Hart Publishers are offering 20% off titles using the code HE6 at checkout. Titles include:
    • Mariagiulia Giuffré: The Readmission of Asylum Seekers under International Law.
    • Nasia Hadjigeorgiou: Protecting Human Rights and Building Peace in Post Violence Societies. 
    • Hedvig Bernitz and Victoria Enkvist: Freedom of Religion
    • Dalia Palombo: Business and Human Rights.

visit for more. 

1 comment;

  1. I have only skimmed through this vital article. This para caught my eye “The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the [approved clinician in charge of the treatment.”
    This is illegal.
    My good patient and friend who was over 100 years old became Spirit even though in good health because she did not put things in writing.
    This virus does not cause a mental disorder.
    Who approves the clinician in charge?
    Decades ago the NHS Consultant diagnosed me with Cancer giving me a few weeks to live. When I challenged this statement it was fully retracted i.e. I did not have cancer.
    Every Patient MUST be advised to appoint family or trusted person to oversee.
    More later …tomorrow …await the follow up.
    Can I publish this article on Facebook and my website?
    Be safe Thank you Peace!

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: