Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:47:16.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ambiguity of the Mental Health Act?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rafiq Memon*
Affiliation:
Reaside Clinic, Birmingham Great Park, Bristol Road South, Rubery, Birmingham B45 9BE
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2002. The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Sir: Ogundipe et al conclude that there is perceived ambiguity in the legality of transferring people from one place of safety to another under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 (Psychiatric Bulletin, October 2001, 25, 388-390).

The MHA Commission in its Sixth Biennial Report states “… it is illegal to move the subject from one place of safety to another once assessment has been instigated” (p. 78). However, it does not cite case law or statute to support this view.

Section 136 of the MHA on a literal reading states nothing at all about transferring persons between places of safety. Indeed, the draftsman has written the language in the singular, not the plural. He uses the terms “a person” and “a place of safety”. The issue of transfer is simply not raised at all. This being the case, I submit that Parliament never intended for persons to be transferred under the authority of this Section. If it did, it would have said so.

References

The Mental Health Act Commission. Sixth Biennial Report 1993–1995. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.