TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors

Under the Mental Health Act 1983, the lawfulness of detention following an apparently valid application is assessed separately from the underlying defect in that application. Hospital managers may act on an application which appears duly made, but must end detention when a fundamental defect is identified and cannot be rectified.

Where the nearest relative objects, the application is unlawful in fact. Lawfulness does not depend on the AMHP’s reasonable belief that no objection exists. Domestic law nevertheless treats the admission and detention as lawful until a court determines the defect, unless negligence, bad faith or other actionable fault is established. The claimant therefore had no claim for compensation under Article 5(5) of the ECHR and no declaration of incompatibility arose.

The claimant was admitted to hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. His brother, acting as nearest relative, had objected to the application, but the AMHP honestly believed that the objection had been withdrawn. Burton J granted habeas corpus and ordered the claimant’s release.

The claimant then sought declarations, damages under Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR, leave to bring civil proceedings against the local authority under section 139(2) of the Act, and declarations that sections 139(1) and 6(3) were incompatible with Convention rights. The issues included the effect of the nearest relative’s objection, the practicability of using doctors with previous acquaintance, the hospital managers’ scrutiny obligations, and whether the detention was retrospectively unlawful.

1. Application and nearest relative. The AMHP was prohibited by section 11(4)(a) of the Mental Health Act 1983 from making the application because the nearest relative had in fact maintained his objection. Lawfulness did not depend on whether the AMHP reasonably believed that the objection had been withdrawn. The detention was therefore unlawful in fact.
2. Medical recommendations. Section 12(2) requires previous acquaintance where practicable. Practicability is not equivalent to mere possibility and must be assessed in the patient’s interests. Given the division of opinion among doctors who knew the claimant, it was reasonable to obtain two fresh independent assessments, both from section 12-approved practitioners. There was no breach of section 12(2).
3. Hospital managers. The managers were entitled to rely on the AMHP’s confirmation that there was no objection. The Code of Practice distinguishes the initial check that documents appear to constitute a duly made application from subsequent scrutiny. If scrutiny reveals a fundamental defect which cannot be rectified under section 15, detention must end or a fresh lawful basis must be obtained. Section 6(3) protected the hospital managers in acting on the apparently valid application.
4. Liability and Convention rights. The local authority was the proper defendant and was vicariously responsible for the AMHP’s acts. However, the evidence established an honest mistake rather than negligence or bad faith, so leave under section 139(2) was refused. Article 8 added nothing to Article 5. Following the approach in R v Central London County Court ex p London [1999] QB 1260, the admission and detention were lawful in domestic law until the court determined the defect. There was consequently no breach of Article 5 or entitlement to compensation under Article 5(5).
5. The claim for declarations, damages, leave and a declaration of incompatibility was dismissed.