19.119R (W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378, [2004] MHLR 201
Local authorities were not under a duty to make arrangements for after-care services before the tribunal directed discharge and, when the tribunal ordered conditional discharge, were not under an absolute duty but a duty to make reasonable endeavours to make provision to satisfy the conditions: meanwhile, the patient’s continued detention was lawful
Facts: the MHRT conditionally discharged W but the conditions proved impracticable to fulfil. After eight months, W re-applied to the MHRT, who conditionally discharged him again, on varied conditions. W claimed damages for false imprisonment and breach of his rights under Article 5 ECHR.
Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Judge, Mance and Scott Baker LJJ) dismissed the claim, holding that W had always been lawfully detained and that (i) the duty to provide after-care services only arises upon the patient ceasing to be detained leaving hospital; (ii) the authorities were under a duty to make reasonable endeavours to make arrangements required as the conditions of a conditional discharge or a deferred conditional discharge; (iii) in a non-contentious case, the authorities should seek to finalise an after-care plan for consideration by the tribunal; a breach of section 117 did not in itself give rise to a cause of action for damages or create a right to damages under Article 5 ECHR, against the after-care authority or the hospital; (iv) in this case, Doncaster had been faced with a number of issues leading to delay but it had used reasonable endeavours.