ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø

View the related checklists about Mental disorder

EPA registration checklist

EPA registration checklist This Checklist outlines the steps that should be taken in order to successfully register an enduring power of attorney (EPA). These steps include checking that the EPA was valid when created and is still valid, assessing the mental capacity of the donor, notifying the relevant parties of the intention to register the EPA and the application for registration. Ensuring that the enduring power of attorney was valid when created Make sure that the power: • is in the form prescribed by law at the time when it was executed by the donor and that, when it was executed by the donor, it incorporated the explanatory information prescribed at that time, and that none of the following statements has been omitted: ◦ that the donor intends the power to continue in spite of any supervening mental incapacity ◦ that the donor has read or had read to them the information explaining the effect of creating the power ◦ that the attorney understands the duty of registration...

²Ñ¾±³Ù¾±²µ²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô—c³ó±ð³¦°ì±ô¾±²õ³Ù

²Ñ¾±³Ù¾±²µ²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô—c³ó±ð³¦°ì±ô¾±²õ³Ù How a sentence is reached When determining a sentence, a court will usually consider any statutory sentencing range, the applicable Sentencing Council (SC) guidelines including any offence specific sentencing guideline, the overarching guidelines and sentencing judgments from the Court of Appeal. The SC’s offence specific guidelines or the general guideline set out a stepped approach which the court must follow. See Practice Notes: Sentences imposed following conviction and Sentencing Council General Guideline—Overarching Principles. Generally, in sentencing exercises the court will need to consider the following: • the relevant starting point in the Sentencing Guidelines • the aggravating factors of the offence • the mitigation and personal circumstances of the defendant • any reduction in sentence for a guilty plea • whether the offender is dangerous and if there is a significant risk of harm through the commission of further specified offences • any ancillary orders that are appropriate • the totality of the sentence to ensure it is proportionate to the offending behaviour Mitigation The...

View the related practice notes about Mental disorder

Recognised psychiatric illness

The general rule—no compensation for mental distress without recognised psychiatric illnessIt is common for accident victims to suffer considerable distress as a result of their accident or injury, particularly if the accident itself was very serious or if a fatality occurred. Generally speaking, such distress will not entitle them to bring a claim for psychiatric injury as a separate head of loss unless that injury amounts to a recognised psychiatric illness.As such, whether or not a claimant has suffered a recognised psychiatric injury is a particularly important issue.There are two benefits to resolving this question quickly: firstly, it allows the claim to proceed on the correct basis and the claimant to be compensated in full; and secondly, it means that the rehabilitation code can be used to help a claimant who will benefit medically from psychological or psychiatric intervention to receive it as soon as possible.For further information on the most recent Rehabilitation Code, see Practice Note: Rehabilitation Code 2015.The different factual situations where a claim for psychiatric injury or...

Psychiatric injury—other legal relationships

Pre-existing legal relationshipsSometimes psychiatric injury will occur in circumstances where there is a pre-existing legal relationship between the claimant and the defendant. There will be occasions when the nature of that relationship is such that it imposes a duty on the defendant to take reasonable care not to inflict psychiatric injury. For example:•occupational stress cases: these provide perhaps the most obvious examples of the operation of a pre-existing legal duty not to cause ‘pure’ psychiatric harm. See Practice Notes: Occupational stress—introduction and Occupational stress—establishing liability•health authority cases in which there is a liability for communication of distressing news: in such cases there is an established relationship between the parties. It may be foreseeable that the negligent provision of inaccurate information, or even insensitive communication of accurate information, might cause psychiatric injury. For example:◦a claimant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after being told, wrongly, that his baby had died (it is noteworthy, though, that the judge’s reasoning in this case was that the claimant was entitled to recover as a primary victim)◦a...

View the related precedents about Mental disorder

Draft particulars of claim child abuse (Pre-Children Act)

Draft particulars of claim child abuse (Pre-Children Act) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Between X        Claimant - and - Y        Defendant Introduction 1 The Defendant was at all relevant times a statutory body whose duties included the duty to provide proper social services functions pursuant to Section 2 of and Schedule 1 of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970. 2 In the course of providing social services functions the Defendant had a duty to take into care children living in the area of [insert area] and who were in need of being safeguarded. The duties of the Defendant in respect of children who were thought to be at risk of harm were defined by Section 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. 3 This section provided that the local authority which received information that suggested that there were grounds of bringing care proceedings in respect of a child should make enquiries unless it was satisfied that such enquiries...

View the related q&as about Mental disorder

How can a director of a private company with Table A articles be removed due to lack of mental capacity if regulation 81 of the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985 has been excluded? Can the director be removed pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005?

How can a director of a private company with Table A articles be removed due to lack of mental capacity if regulation 81 of the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985 has been excluded? Can the director be removed pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005? The articles and Companies Act 2006 The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) does not contain any provisions dealing with the mental incapacity of a director. Such issues should be dealt with in the articles of association of the company. The Precedent: Model articles—private limited company—after 28 April 2013 provides that the mental incapacity will automatically terminate a person’s appointment as a director as soon as a registered medical practitioner who is treating that director gives a written opinion to the company stating that the director has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a director and may remain so for more than three months (Model article 18). There is no equivalent provision in...

Can a designated 'nearest relative' within the meaning of regulation 24 of the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 in turn delegate that function to another person? Could the nearest relative function be delegated to a local authority?

Can a designated 'nearest relative' within the meaning of regulation 24 of the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 in turn delegate that function to another person? Could the nearest relative function be delegated to a local authority? The Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 (the Regulations), SI 2008/1184 are the principal regulations dealing with the procedural matters relating to compulsory treatment of persons who have a mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. Who can be appointed as the ‘nearest relative’? MeHA 1983, s 26 defines ‘relative’ and ‘nearest relative’. MeHA 1983, s 26(1) states that ‘relative’ means any of the following persons: • husband or wife [or civil partner] • son or daughter • father or mother • brother or sister • grandparent • grandchild • uncle or aunt, and • nephew or niece MeHA 1983, s 26(3) provides that the ‘nearest relative’ is the person first described in...

View the related News about Mental disorder

Anorexia and Feeding under Sedation—in P’s Best Interests? (Re LV, by her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor)

Private Client analysis: Declarations were sought by NHS Trusts under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) that LV, a 20-year-old woman, lacked mental capacity to conduct proceedings and make decisions about her care and treatment, and that it was lawful and in LV’s best interests to undergo feeding whilst sedated within the Intensive Therapy Unit (ITU). LV was detained and receiving treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) on an eating disorder unit for anorexia nervosa, which included being restrained and force-fed with a naso-gastric tube. This treatment was not successful as, in summary, LV would regurgitate most, if not all, of the feed meaning that she was losing body weight. The medical evidence demonstrated that absent this step being taken, LV would die within days or weeks. This was an urgent application and there was insufficient time for the Official Solicitor to obtain LV’s wishes and feelings directly. The Official Solicitor had consented to the application after hearing the evidence which included oral...

Public Law weekly highlights—26 September 2024

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes expert analysis of the decision in Roche v GGHB concerning a public procurement dispute; R (PCC West Midlands) v SoS for the Home Department where the Administrative Court ruled that the decision was unlawful due to inadequate public consultation; RM (a person under a disability) concerning the legality of continued detention in a hospital; R (Carrigan) v Secretary of State for Justice concerning the Parole Board recommendations regarding a prisoner transfer and R (Oxendale) v Secretary of State for Justice again concerning prison transfer. Case reports also include R (ETM Contractors Ltd) v Bristol City Council concerning planning permission. This weekly highlights also include further updates on Brexit highlights, Post-Brexit transition guidance, Post-Brexit transition guidance, Brexit SIs, Public procurement, Judicial review, Constitutional and administrative law, State accountability and liability, Coronavirus (COVID-19) SIs, Equality and human rights, and Projects and infrastructure.