X v An NHS Trust

A hospital order made under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 does not cease to exist merely because the patient is not admitted to the specified hospital within 28 days. The 28-day requirement governs timely admission and authorises interim detention only within that period. Failure to meet it makes detention during the resulting gap unlawful, but does not invalidate the continuing authority to admit and detain the patient in the specified hospital. A varied Crown Court order under section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 takes effect from the date of the original order unless the court expressly directs otherwise. Article 5 is satisfied once detention is authorised by a procedure prescribed by law, but court orders must state clearly the relevant dates and interim authority.

The claimant had been made subject to a hospital order directing admission to a specified unit. The order was later varied to identify another unit, but the amended order was understood operationally as restarting the 28-day period. The claimant was admitted three days after the period calculated from the original order had expired.

He sought judicial review, contending that the hospital order had become frustrated and that his detention after expiry of the 28-day period was unlawful. The central issues were the proper construction of the varied order, the effect of section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and whether the continuing hospital detention remained authorised.

1. Construction of the varied order. The order made on 21 December 2004 varied the earlier order but did not expressly displace the ordinary effect of section 155(5) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The 28-day period therefore ran from 17 December 2004. A specific and unequivocal direction was required to alter that statutory consequence.
2. Effect of section 37. Section 37(4) required arrangements for admission to the specified hospital within 28 days. It also supported interim detention in a place of safety pending admission. The claimant’s detention in prison for the three days after 14 January 2005 was not authorised by an operative court direction and was unlawful.
3. Continuing hospital authority. The failure to admit the claimant within 28 days did not cause the valid hospital order to cease to exist. The order authorising admission to and detention in the specified unit remained effective until set aside, varied or otherwise displaced. The claimant’s detention after admission on 17 January 2005 was therefore lawful.
4. Article 5. This construction was compatible with Article 5(1) of the Convention. The short period of unauthorised prison detention was unlawful, while the subsequent hospital detention was authorised by a procedure prescribed by law. The judgment emphasised the need for precise orders identifying the applicable dates and interim detention authority.
5. Wider point. If circumstances later made the hospital order inappropriate, an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal could provide a formal route for reconsideration. The judicial review claim accordingly succeeded only to the extent that the three-day prison detention was unlawful; detention from 17 January 2005 was lawfully justified.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court). Permission was granted and the hearing was treated as the substantive application. The judgment records no earlier judicial decision in the same claim.