Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Case digest

Case digest Legal column Alison Brammer Lecturer in Law, Department of Law, University of Keele This edition’s legal column looks R v London Borough of Richmond, ex parte at another three cases with Watson; Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, significant relevance in the adult ex parte Armstrong; Manchester City Council, protection field. The first relates ex parte Stennett; London Borough of Harrow, to charging for residential care ex parte Cobham; 1999 QBD services and, where charging is not permitted the implications for local The debate about issues relating to charging for residential authority resourcing. The second accommodation discussed in relation to the Coughlan case in examines the powers of the police the previous edition continues here. The present case makes a to disclose confidential information contribution to the ongoing debate over charging for services in the absence of criminal and in particular, residential accommodation, provided in meeting prosecution to facilitate other the statutory duty to provide after care under Section 117 of the regulatory activity to go ahead. Mental Health Act 1983. The final case considers the important area of wrongful THERE WERE FOUR APPLICATIONS for judicial review based on detention in the context of use of similar facts. In each case the issue concerned whether each the Mental Health Act 1983 and the of the respondent social services authorities could charge for responsibility of professionals to residential accommodation provided as after care services behave with probity. Together the under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Each of three cases provide interesting food the applicants had been detained in hospital under Section 3 for thought for all practitioners of the MHA 1983. Upon discharge from hospital they had working with vulnerable adults. been provided with residential accommodation by the social services authority. Evidence provided to the court showed that around half of all social services authorities made a charge for residential charge accommodation provided pursuant to S.117. It was also submitted that if authorities did not charge this would impose a cost of over £50 million. The arguments raised were based around differing interpretations of S.117. The section imposes a duty on authorities, ‘to provide ... after care services for any person (in the circumstances of the applicants) until such time as ... the person concerned is no longer in need if such services.’ It was agreed that residential accommodation was included in the term ‘after care services’ and also that S.117 did not directly confer a power to charge. The authorities did argue, however, that S.117 should be seen as a ‘gateway’ section, imposing a duty on authorities to ensure after care services were provided 46 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Limited The Journal of Adult Protection Volume 2 Issue 1 • February 2000 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Adult Protection Emerald Publishing

Case digest

The Journal of Adult Protection , Volume 2 (1): 1 – Feb 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/case-digest-liZ6ul9vZE
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1466-8203
DOI
10.1108/14668203200000009
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Legal column Alison Brammer Lecturer in Law, Department of Law, University of Keele This edition’s legal column looks R v London Borough of Richmond, ex parte at another three cases with Watson; Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, significant relevance in the adult ex parte Armstrong; Manchester City Council, protection field. The first relates ex parte Stennett; London Borough of Harrow, to charging for residential care ex parte Cobham; 1999 QBD services and, where charging is not permitted the implications for local The debate about issues relating to charging for residential authority resourcing. The second accommodation discussed in relation to the Coughlan case in examines the powers of the police the previous edition continues here. The present case makes a to disclose confidential information contribution to the ongoing debate over charging for services in the absence of criminal and in particular, residential accommodation, provided in meeting prosecution to facilitate other the statutory duty to provide after care under Section 117 of the regulatory activity to go ahead. Mental Health Act 1983. The final case considers the important area of wrongful THERE WERE FOUR APPLICATIONS for judicial review based on detention in the context of use of similar facts. In each case the issue concerned whether each the Mental Health Act 1983 and the of the respondent social services authorities could charge for responsibility of professionals to residential accommodation provided as after care services behave with probity. Together the under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Each of three cases provide interesting food the applicants had been detained in hospital under Section 3 for thought for all practitioners of the MHA 1983. Upon discharge from hospital they had working with vulnerable adults. been provided with residential accommodation by the social services authority. Evidence provided to the court showed that around half of all social services authorities made a charge for residential charge accommodation provided pursuant to S.117. It was also submitted that if authorities did not charge this would impose a cost of over £50 million. The arguments raised were based around differing interpretations of S.117. The section imposes a duty on authorities, ‘to provide ... after care services for any person (in the circumstances of the applicants) until such time as ... the person concerned is no longer in need if such services.’ It was agreed that residential accommodation was included in the term ‘after care services’ and also that S.117 did not directly confer a power to charge. The authorities did argue, however, that S.117 should be seen as a ‘gateway’ section, imposing a duty on authorities to ensure after care services were provided 46 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Limited The Journal of Adult Protection Volume 2 Issue 1 • February 2000

Journal

The Journal of Adult ProtectionEmerald Publishing

Published: Feb 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.