Case Law Update – Mental Health Act 1983
Oct 24 2024
Bevan Brittan Education Lunchtime Training Webinars 2024
Read MoreThis update contains brief details of recent Government publications, legislation, cases and other developments relevant to those involved in local government work, which have been published in thetwo weeksup to1 July 2011. Items are set out by subject, with a link to where the full document can be found on the internet.
Legal intelligence for professionals in local government.
This update contains brief details of recent Government publications, legislation, cases and other developments relevant to those involved in local government work, which have been published in the previous two weeks. Items are set out by subject, with a link to where the full document can be found on the internet.
If you have been forwarded this update by a colleague and would
like to receive it direct please email
Claire Booth.
All links are correct at the date of publication. The following
topics are covered in this update:
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Caraline Johnson.
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Caraline Johnson.
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Caraline Johnson.
Draft Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011: section 153 of the Equality Act gives the Government a power to impose specific duties on certain public bodies to enable them to perform the Public Sector Equality Duty more effectively. These draft regulations have been laid before Parliament. Once in force, they will require public authorities in Great Britain to publish equality objectives, at least every four years, by April 2012, and also information to demonstrate their compliance with the Equality Duty, at least annually. There is also an Explanatory Memorandum. Note that these apply only to English authorities - specific duties in Wales came into force on 6 April 2011 (see SI 2011/1064) while specific duties that will apply to Scottish public bodies are still being decided. (28 June 2011)
G (by his Litigation Friend) v St Gregory's Catholic
Science College Head Teacher & Governors [2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin)
(Admin Ct): this case concerned the lawfulness of a
school's application of its uniform policy regarding pupils'
hairstyles. G, who was of African-Caribbean ethnicity, had not cut
his hair since birth and wore it in cornrows (or braids)
in accordance with his family tradition. The school's uniform
policy prohibited cornrows and so he was not permitted to
attend school so long as he kept this hairstyle. He claimed that
the prohibition on cornrows was discriminatory on sex and on
race grounds as it meant he was unable to take up his
place at the school.
The court held, allowing the claim in part, that there had
been indirect race discrimination. The wording of s.1(1A)(a)
of the Race Relations Act 1976 regarding "a provision, criterion or
practice which put persons of the same race or ethnic or
national origins as that other at a particular disadvantage when
compared with other persons" indicated that what was recognised was
more than a disadvantage and required a high standard. There was
evidence that there were some people of African-Caribbean
ethnicity who regarded the cutting of their hair to be wrong
and so they needed it to be kept in cornrows, so the judge was
satisfied that there was a group who could be particularly
disadvantaged by a refusal to permit them to wear their hair in
cornrows. Family and social customs could be a 'part of ethnicity'
within the meaning of the Act , and that was the case here. Nor was
this indirect discrimination justified. However, there was no sex
discrimination. A rigid appearance policy at a school was clearly
entirely reasonable provided it complied with equality law. The
different application of the rules regarding cornrows in the
school's policy did not mean that boys were treated less favourably
than girls. While it was not uncommon for African-Caribbean males
to wear cornrows, 'not unusual' did not equate to conventional and
an appearance policy such as the one operated by the defendants was
not discriminatory even though it applied different rules to
girls than for boys. (17 June 2011)
R (Tiller) v East
Sussex CC (Unreported) (Admin Ct): T, who was a
disabled person and a tenant of the local authority living in
sheltered accommodation, applied for judicial review of the local
authority's decision to change the way in which support services
were offered to tenants. The services provided as part of the
sheltered housing scheme included a 24 hour on-site warden.
The local authority, following consultation, decided to replace
this service with non-resident staff who would be available
on-site during normal weekday working hours, and an off-site
service available outside of those hours via a community alarm
service. T contended that the local authority had acted
in breach of its statutory duty under s.49A of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 Act when taking the decision to change the
way in which support services were provided to tenants.
The court held, dismissing T's application, that the decision had
been preceded by an extremely detailed consultation process and
after careful and proper consideration by the authority. A great
deal of care had been taken to address issues relating to s.49A of
the 1995 Act and, although neither the 1995 Act nor the s.49A duty
had been mentioned in the documents, due regard had been paid. It
was obvious that a remote service could not be as good as an
on-site service, but in the circumstances the tenants' concerns had
been adequately addressed. The judge noted that although the Act
and the s.49A duty should not be mentioned in decisions by way of
mantra, the lcoal authority's failure to mention them had left
the decision open to challenge. (29 June 2011)
The judgment is available on the Lawtel database
(password required).
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Sarah Lamont.
DCLG: New Burdens doctrine - guidance for government departments: the Government's New Burdens doctrine commits the Government to fully fund new powers and duties imposed on local authorities. This new guidance sets out the factors that government departments should take into account when considering the costs and savings to local authorities arising from changes to policies and programmes. It states that the Cabinet has agreed that all new burdens on local authorities must be properly assessed and fully funded by the relevant department. The guidance sets out the process that departments must follow when considering new burdens, and includes the definition of New Burdens, the responsibility on departments for handling them, and the process which should be followed in all cases. (20 June 2011)
London Councils: Resourcing London - a model for retained business rates: sets out a detailed model for how business rates across the capital could be collected and shared between local authorities, stimulating economic growth as well as supporting vital services. Under London Councils' scheme, the £5.5bn collected annually could be used to fund local services and also do more to incentivise economic development. The model offers each London borough both an individual borough reward and a share of a London wide growth reward for encouraging economic growth; pools the rates collected across the capital, before re-allocating funding to each council based on their residents’ needs; and ensures a stable system which would bring businesses and local authorities together in a much closer working relationship to help develop stronger communities. (22 June 2011)
DCLG: Local authority capital expenditure and
financing England - 2011-12 Individual local authority data
forecast: DCLG has issued a series of spreadsheets that compile
the forecast estimates of local authority capital expenditure and
financing for the financial year April 2011 to March 2012. They
include figures by service and category (e.g. housing,
highways, recycling, education), where the financing is coming from
(e.g. grants, lottery) and also prudential borrowing information.
For each spreadsheet, it is possible to extract the figures for
types of authorities (e.g. by region or tier) and for every
individual authority. (28 June 2011)
DCLG has also published spreadsheets of Local authority revenue expenditure and financing
England 2011-12 showing revenue account budgets estimates for
each authority. (29 June 2011)
DCLG: Community Budgets to be rolled out countrywide: announces that Community Budgets are to be rolled out across England, following the success of 16 pioneer areas that have put in place plans to support families with multiple problems. The Deputy Prime Minister has invited councils to sign up for support from voluntary and private sector experts in redesigning local services and using new and more effective ways to help such families, as well as deliver savings in local service costs. Around 50 more authorities will get Community Budgets this year and then at least a further 60 in 2012-13. In addition, four new Community Budgets pilots will be launched to explore how communities can have greater control over services through a single budget from Whitehall, as part the Government's review into local government finances. (29 June 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Bethan Evans.
^back to top
Update on the progress of HealthWatch: CQC reports that HealthWatch England and Local HealthWatch will now be established from October 2012. This will give Local HealthWatch the opportunity to play a full role in clinical commissioning groups and health and wellbeing boards when they are set up. Local authorities and Local HealthWatch will take formal responsibility for commissioning NHS complaints advocacy from April 2013. (20 June 2011)
DH: Government response to the NHS Future Forum
report: this document sets out the Government's detailed
response to the NHS Future Forum's report on proposals for
modernising the NHS. It outlines changes that the Government
intends to make in line with the Forum's recommendations, including
changes to patient accountability and public involvement. (20 June
2011)
The DH has also published Briefing notes on amendments to the Health and
Social Care Bill which describe the purpose and effect of the
amendments, following the structure of the Government response. (27
June 2011)
Bevan Brittan has issued an alert "Reforming
the reforms" in which we comment on the new amendments to the
Health and Social Care Bill.
DH: Local health profiles 2011: this statistical release draws together information to present a picture of health in each local area. There are 351 Local Health Profiles – one for each Lower Tier, Upper Tier, Unitary and Metropolitan District Authority in England. They are intended to be a valuable tool for local government and health services in helping them to understand their community’s needs, so that they can work to improve people’s health and reduce health inequalities. (28 June 2011)
DH: £1 million boost for Health and Wellbeing Boards: the Health Secretary has spoken at the LGA Conference about the critical role that Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) will play in bringing together councillors, clinical commissioning groups and local communities to ensure patients and the public experience more joined-up health and care services in the future. He has also announced funding to to support the development of HWBs, that will be used create a learning programme, develop an interactive online forum, and support councillors. (30 June 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Olwen Dutton.
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Adrian Neale.
Coventry City Council v Vassall [2011] EWHC 1542 (Admin)
(Admin Ct): the Council appealed against the magistrates'
court's decision that V was not guilty of failing to give prompt
notification of a change of circumstances that he knew would affect
his entitlement to housing benefit and council tax
benefit, contrary to s.112(1A) of the Social Security
Administration Act 1992. V was in receipt of Jobseeker's
Allowance (JSA), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (CTB),
which he claimed at the job centre. He signed a declaration
that he would inform the council of any changes in his
circumstances which might affect his claim but the form gave
no further details of how or where a change of circumstances had to
be notified. He later told the job centre about a change in his
circumstances and his JSA was terminated, but the staff there did
not tell him that he needed separately to inform the Council's
Housing Department of the change in respect of the other benefits,
and he continued to receive them, resulting in him
being overpaid £6,215.95 in Housing Benefit. The
magistrates found that the case against V had not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and they acquitted him.
The court held, dismissing the Council's appeal, that the
prosecution had failed to prove that, at relevant time, V knew that
his move into full-time education would (rather
than could) affect his entitlement to housing
benefit, as required by s.112(1A)(c). The judge found that V
was aware that his change of circumstance could affect his
entitlement to benefits but he clearly did not know that it
would. Having given notice to the job centre, he believed that
he was continuing to receive housing benefit and CTB because he was
entitled to them. A failure to notify was not necessarily the
same thing as mere non-notification, and if Parliament had intended
criminal liability in relation to this failure to have been strict,
it could have used words to have made that clear, such as
"knowingly or otherwise". Section 112(1A)(d) should be read
as "he knowingly fails to give a prompt notification" of a
relevant change of circumstance. On a review of principle
supported by such authority as there was, s.112(1A)(d) was not
intended as a strict requirement, and Parliament intended that a
requirement for a mental element should be read in, although the
prosecution did not have to go so far as to prove that the
failure to notify was dishonest. (17 June 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Kane Kirkbride.
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Peter Keith-Lucas.
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Peter Keith-Lucas.
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Adam Kendall.
DfT: The Blue Badge Scheme - local authority guidance (England): this non-statutory guidance provides local authorities with good practice advice on administering and enforcing the Blue Badge Scheme for disabled drivers. The guidance has been updated to reflect recent reforms to the Scheme; it replaces the previous guidance issued in 2008. (27 June 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Peter Keith-Lucas.
Bevan Brittan has developed a
well-recognised programme of training designed to assist local
authorities in successfully implementing legal change. Led by key
members of our local authority team, each session will clearly
explain the key aspects of the law and the implications for local
government. Using case studies and carefully selected complementary
speakers, they will assist attendees in realising the full benefits
of implementation and the dangerous pitfalls in failure to act.
Forthcoming seminars in 2011 include:
Full details of our new Training Programme for 2011/12 will be distributed shortly - see our website.
We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set optional analytics cookies to help us improve it. We won't set optional cookies unless you enable them. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences. For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.
Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.
We'd like to set Google Analytics cookies to help us to improve our website by collection and reporting information on how you use it. The cookies collect information in a way that does not directly identify anyone.
For more information on how these cookies work, please see our Cookies page.