X, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal

A Mental Health Review Tribunal may adjourn proceedings on its own initiative to obtain information necessary for a just and correct decision, including after evidence and submissions have ended but before its formal determination. The power must be exercised exceptionally and with regard to the need to avoid unlawful or unnecessary detention. The Tribunal must balance the need for further information against the delay caused. Before deciding to adjourn, it should notify the parties and invite submissions, particularly about the proposed date and the opportunity to answer fresh evidence. Procedural error does not automatically invalidate the adjournment. Judicial review intervention is justified only where the decision is legally flawed, including because it is irrational.

The claimant, detained under hospital and restriction orders made under the Mental Health Act, applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for release. The Tribunal heard extensive evidence but, after the hearing and submissions had concluded, adjourned to obtain a further report and evidence from the responsible medical officer. It also sought updated evidence from social workers.

The claimant challenged the adjournment on fairness and substantive grounds. He argued that the Tribunal should decide the application on the evidence presented and that obtaining further evidence risked assisting the authority to establish continued detention. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had power to adjourn at that stage, what limits applied to that power, and whether the procedural defects required the decision to be quashed.

1. Claim dismissed. The Tribunal had power under rule 16 of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 to adjourn at any time before reaching its formal decision for the purpose of obtaining further information. The reference to a hearing extended to the proceedings up to determination. It was unnecessary to decide whether rule 15 also applied.
2. The Tribunal’s function cannot usefully be classified simply as adversarial or inquisitorial. Although the authority bears the burden of establishing that the conditions for detention exist, the Tribunal must ensure that it has the relevant information needed to reach the correct decision, particularly where public safety is engaged.
3. An adjournment should occur only where the Tribunal considers it necessary to do justice and reach the right result. It must balance the need for further information against the delay caused. Detention engages Article 5 of the Convention, and unnecessary delay may be unlawful. The court may interfere only if the decision is wrong in law, including because it is irrational.
4. Where an adjournment is being considered, the parties must be informed and invited to make submissions. They should have an opportunity to address the proposed date and to respond to any new evidence. The claimant must have the last word and be able to call evidence in rebuttal.
5. The Tribunal’s failure to consult the parties before announcing the adjournment was procedurally improper and created a real risk of unfairness. It did not, however, require the adjournment to be quashed. On the evidence, the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that it could not reach the correct decision without hearing from the responsible medical officer. Seeking further evidence is impermissible if it is merely an attempt to repair an inadequate case for detention, but may be justified where the Tribunal cannot safely resolve a genuine evidential conflict.
6. The late adjournment was highly exceptional and should ordinarily be avoided. Any further adjournment had to be as short as possible, and the Tribunal was urged to give fuller reasons given the seriousness and complexity of the case.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The claim challenging the Tribunal’s adjournment decision was dismissed.