Facts: Mr Mwanza and his family were unlawfully present in the UK. Mr Mwanza had received various support services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 but the PCT and local authority ultimately decided to cease their duty under that section. Afterwards, facing destitution on account of his and his family’s immigration status, Mr Mwanza sought accommodation and support, either under section 117 or under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

Judgment: Hickinbottom J held that:

1) The duty to provide after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a duty to provide services that are necessary to meet a need arising from a person’s mental disorder. The need to work and the need for a roof over one’s head are common needs and do not arise from mental disorder. This does not mean that a need for assistance in finding employment or housing on discharge cannot be provided and neither is it the case that provision of ordinary accommodation can never fall within section 117.

2) In this case, the need for accommodation came from the legal inability of the claimant and his wife to work due to their immigration status and could not be said to be due to the claimant’s mental condition or any change in that condition.

3) In any event, there had been a proper decision in 2001 to discharge the claimant from further section 117 services, on the basis that it had been concluded by the claimant’s absence and the lack of further problems that the claimant no longer needed them. Also, the challenge in this case had to be viewed as a challenge to the decision to treat section 117 responsibilities as discharged and gave rise to overwhelming arguments of delay in challenging the decision by way of judicial review.

4) The claim against Bromley council under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 would be dismissed, since the claimant did not need any care and attention that could not be provided by his family looking after him and that assessment had not been challenged, nor could it be. It also appeared that the family’s immigration status and the absence of any reliable evidence that there were any outstanding immigration appeals meant that the council was precluded from providing services under section 21.