Judicial recognition of the status of the Code of Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i10.147Abstract
R (on the application of Colonel Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust; S v Airedale NHS Trust
Interested Parties: 1) Secretary of State for Health; 2) Mind
[2003] EWCA Civ 1036 Court of Appeal (16th July 2003) Lord Phillips MR, Hale LJ, and Latham LJ
This is the Court of Appeal decision in two cases which raised questions about the status of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. Although both cases concerned the use of seclusion, the judgment is likely to have a significant impact on any matter covered by the Code. At first instance Stanley Burnton J and Sullivan J had each held that the Code was merely guidance to which Trusts should have regard but from which they could depart. Such departure would only be unlawful if it was Wednesbury unreasonable.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
