Secretary of State for Justice, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor

A Mental Health Review Tribunal deciding whether to discharge a restricted patient must give proper reasons addressing the statutory criteria for detention, recall and discharge. Rule 23(2) of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 requires the written decision to state good reasons and, in particular, to explain why the Tribunal is satisfied about the matters in sections 72 and 73 of the Mental Health Act 1983. A decision may be defective on its face where the Tribunal summarises the evidence and announces its conclusion but does not explain its satisfaction as to those statutory matters. The court may quash the decision and remit it for reconsideration, even where the Tribunal has conceded the public-law error.

The Secretary of State sought judicial review of the Mental Health Review Tribunal’s decision to grant Zahra Rafiq a deferred conditional discharge. Mrs Rafiq was detained under a hospital order with a restriction order following her conviction for arson. The Tribunal concluded that her mental illness no longer warranted continued detention, but that she should remain liable to recall, subject to conditions.

After the Secretary of State commenced proceedings, the Tribunal conceded that its reasons arguably failed to state that the statutory criteria for conditional discharge were met. Permission had been granted by Holman J, and Burton J had adjourned a later Tribunal hearing pending the judicial review. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s written reasons complied with rule 23(2) of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983.

1. The claim succeeded. The Tribunal’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for further consideration.
2. Under sections 72 and 73 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Tribunal had to address whether Mrs Rafiq’s mental illness was of a nature or degree making detention appropriate, whether continued treatment was necessary for her health and safety or the protection of others, and whether she should be absolutely or conditionally discharged.
3. Rule 23(2) of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 required the written decision to give good reasons. Where the Tribunal relied on the matters identified in sections 72 and 73, it had to state its reasons for being satisfied as to those matters.
4. The Tribunal’s written decision summarised the evidence and stated that the patient’s condition no longer necessitated detention, that detention would be warranted only on health and safety grounds, and that she should remain liable to recall. It did not, however, set out fully why the statutory criteria were satisfied or why the particular form of discharge followed.
5. The defect was therefore apparent on the face of the decision. The court upheld the challenge notwithstanding the interested party’s contention that the Tribunal had considered the evidence in detail and notwithstanding the Tribunal’s concession. The court expressed sympathy about the resulting delay and hoped that the Tribunal would reconvene promptly, with evidence from the former responsible medical officer if appropriate.

This was a first-instance judicial review.

• Administrative Court: permission was granted by Holman J on 6 February 2008. Burton J subsequently ordered the adjournment of a further Tribunal hearing on 30 January 2008. Mr Justice Owen quashed the Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter for further consideration.