Taylor, R (on the application of) v Haydyn- Smith

In a judicial review concerning compulsory psychiatric treatment, permission may be granted against the relevant medical decision-makers where the claim is properly arguable. An intended expedited substantive hearing may be adjourned and re-fixed where procedural confusion, the availability of medical witnesses and the possible need for cross-examination make the planned hearing impracticable. Questions concerning cross-examination of expert witnesses may be left for the substantive hearing judge, with a paper ruling in advance where practicable.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning compulsory medical treatment for psychiatric purposes. An injunction had previously been ordered, permission was later refused on the papers and the injunction lifted, and subsequent directions contemplated joining Dr Gallimore as the second doctor. Dr Gallimore had certified and reported shortly before this hearing.

The court was unable to proceed to the intended two-day permission and substantive hearing because the second defendant had been misled about its scope, several doctors were unavailable, and there was insufficient time to determine any application for cross-examination. The issues before the court were whether permission should be granted against the present defendants and how the substantive claim should proceed.

1. Permission and procedural directions. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted against both present defendants. The claimant was granted leave to amend the claim form, with detailed grounds against the second defendant to follow.
2. Adjournment. The proposed early substantive hearing could not proceed because the second defendant had not been given adequate notice of the possibility of a substantive hearing, at least two doctors were not readily available, and there was insufficient time to determine whether expert witnesses should be cross-examined. The substantive hearing was therefore re-fixed for 24 May 2005.
3. Cross-examination and evidence. The judge hearing the substantive claim was to determine the application for cross-examination of the three medical witnesses. If practicable, that question was to be decided on the papers in advance of the hearing. Further evidence and skeleton arguments were permitted according to the timetable specified in the order.
4. Other orders. The requirement for an acknowledgement of service and detailed grounds of resistance from the second defendant was dispensed with. The first defendant undertook not to medicate the claimant compulsorily until determination of the judicial review application or further order. Costs were reserved.

The judgment records earlier procedural steps in the same judicial review:

• 14 January 2005: Cooke J ordered an injunction.
• 10 March 2005: Hodge J refused permission on the papers and lifted the injunction.
• 25 April 2005: Munby J gave directions, including dismissal of permission against the former second and third defendants and provision for the new second doctor to be joined.
• 10 May 2005: The present court granted permission against the present defendants and re-fixed the substantive hearing for 24 May 2005.