19.42Barnet LBC ex p Robin (1999) 2 CCLR 454, CA
A nearest relative could be displaced not because of what she had done in the past but because what the evidence showed she was likely to do in the future; the appeal to the Court of Appeal was probably in relation to facts as well as law
Facts: Jacob Robin had suffered from a mental impairment since adolescence but, with one exception, his hospital treatment had been voluntary. As a result of his deterioration, and increasing violence, it had been decided to detain him under section 3 of the MHA 1983 and to apply to displace his mother, as his nearest relative, under section 29: the reason for that application was that, in the past, Jacob’s mother had consistently removed him prematurely from his voluntary placements.
Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Simon Brown, Mummery and Mantell LJJ) held that whilst Mrs Robin had not exercised her powers of discharge as nearest relative, in the past, since Jacob Robin had not been compulsorily detained, on the evidence, she was likely to use those powers unreasonably in the future. However, it appeared that an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 29 of the MHA 1983 lay in relation to matters of fact as well as matters of law.