Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

A warrant under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983 may validly identify conditions governing its execution, including the particular approved social worker and registered medical practitioner who are to accompany the constable. The warrant’s validity is distinct from the lawfulness of its execution. A warrant may remain valid where its premises field is blank, if the information and warrant read as a whole identify the premises without reasonable doubt. Where named accompanying professionals form a lawful condition, execution in their absence is unlawful.

The appellant was removed from her home and detained overnight in hospital under a warrant issued under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983. She brought proceedings against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Epsom & St Helier NHS Trust, claiming false imprisonment and damages. The Central London County Court held that the warrant and its execution were valid, set aside judgment entered against the NHS Trust, and dismissed the claims.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the identification of the premises and the absence of the named approved social worker and doctors. The central questions were whether the warrant sufficiently identified the premises and whether the named professionals imposed a condition on its execution.

1. Appeal allowed. The warrant and its execution raised separate questions: validity under section 135(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983, and lawful execution under section 135(4).
2. The premises were sufficiently identified. Although the address was left blank in the direction, the information and recital referred to 22 Golfside, Cheam on both statutory bases. Read as a whole, the warrant left no reasonable doubt about the premises to which it related.
3. The magistrate had power to impose conditions on execution. The power was draconian because it authorised removal from a person’s home and detention in a place of safety for up to 72 hours under section 174(3) of the Act. The absence of an express statutory time limit supported implying a power to impose conditions protecting the person liable to be removed while furthering the warrant’s purpose.
4. A condition identifying the approved social worker and registered medical practitioner who were to accompany the constable could be lawful. Their identity could be material to deciding whether removal was appropriate and to safe execution. The named persons were therefore not surplusage.
5. The warrant remained valid, but its execution did not comply with the lawful condition. The appellant’s removal was unlawful. The matter was remitted to the Central London County Court for determination of the merits. Costs were in the cause, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2003] EWCA Civ 1152. Appeal allowed. The warrant was valid, but its execution was unlawful because a lawful condition concerning the accompanying professionals was not complied with. The claim was remitted to the Central London County Court.
• Central London County Court: The Recorder held that the warrant and its execution were valid, set aside judgment entered against Epsom & St Helier NHS Trust, and dismissed the claims against both respondents.