Teresa Maher, R (on the application of) v First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) & Ors

A tribunal dealing with a restricted patient’s discharge must balance the statutory presumption of privacy against the constitutional importance of open justice. The presumption is not an inflexible rule. The tribunal must consider the individual circumstances, the reasons advanced for disclosure, and whether a gist, summary or redacted decision could protect privacy while promoting transparency.

Victims’ motives for seeking reasons, including a wish to challenge the decision, should not distort that balance. Differential treatment between victims involved in Mental Health Tribunal and Parole Board processes may fall within the ambit of Article 8 and engage “other status”, but differences may be justified by the distinct clinical functions of the two bodies.

The claimant’s son was unlawfully killed by a mentally disordered offender who was detained under a hospital order and restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983. The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) later directed his conditional discharge.

The claimant challenged the tribunal’s refusal to provide reasons or a gist of reasons, its refusal to receive a victim personal statement, and the absence of a victim-initiated review mechanism. She also challenged a later decision reconsidering disclosure. The issues included fettering of discretion, the correct approach to privacy and open justice, and discrimination under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.

1. Grounds 1, 2 and 6 succeeded. The tribunal’s first refusal was unlawful because it applied a blanket practice that victims were not entitled to reasons and failed to consider the claimant’s specific request. The tribunal had power under rules 2 and 5 of the FTT Rules to revisit the matter.
2. The later decision was also unlawful. The tribunal correctly began with the presumption of privacy in mental health proceedings, but failed to balance it adequately against open justice, public confidence and the claimant’s family-life interests. The correct approach required a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment. The tribunal should have considered whether disclosure of a gist, summary or redacted reasons would sufficiently protect the patient’s privacy.
3. The tribunal placed excessive weight on the claimant’s purpose in seeking reasons, particularly her wish to challenge the discharge. That purpose was not a proper basis for refusing disclosure. It also failed to engage sufficiently with her history of poor communication with the authorities, her concerns about the patient’s progression to discharge, and the possibility of redaction.
4. The claimant established a prima facie case under Article 14 read with Article 8. Access to a summary of reasons for a prisoner’s release was a positive measure within the ambit of Article 8, and the claimant’s position as a close relative of a person killed by an offender subject to a hospital order constituted “other status”.
5. The differences concerning victim personal statements and reconsideration were objectively justified by the distinct, primarily clinical function of the FTT. Those claims therefore failed. Judicial review remained available for unlawfulness, irrationality or procedural unfairness.