1985 was an important year for people with an interest in mental health law. A number of significant questions were answered by the courts.1 This paper considers the issues arising out of two closely related sets of facts. The first, concerning Miss W, gave rise to two cases: R. v. Hallstrom and another, ex p. W (No. 1)2 and R. v. Hallstrom and another, exp. W (No. 2) The second, concerning Mr. L, gave rise to R. v. Gardner and another, ex p. L.4 In combination these cases, first, provide some indications as to the importance of judicial review to patients in mental institutions as a means of questioning action taken by doctors, social workers, nearest relatives and hospitals. Secondly, they highlight the inadequacies of Mental Health Review Tribunals in examining the original decision to admit a person to hospital. Finally, they consider the problems that doctors and social workers face when wanting to provide a person with treatment in the community. These problems are particularly pertinent since the large hospitals now have closure programmes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Gunn (1986) studied this question.