[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Warren's Application For Judicial Review [2001] EWCA Civ 1640 (22 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1640.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1640

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday 22nd October 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: These matters are listed in open court in the following circumstances. The applicant was a mental patient detained at Broadmoor Hospital. The Official Solicitor has submitted consent orders in two long-standing applications. He acts as the applicant's litigation friend. He has relied on an opinion given by leading and junior counsel to the effect that the applications in question have no chance of success. One of them was an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal made on 27th June 1996, refusing to discharge the applicant. The second was an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a certain instruction given by the Chief Executive Officer of Broadmoor on 18th February 1997, relating to possession of videos and computers by patients at the hospital.
2. There is a certificate signed by Professor Anthony Maden on 25th May 2001, which certifies that the applicant is incapable of managing and administering his affairs by reason of mental disorder. The Official Solicitor, for his part, has filed a certificate of suitability and notice of change of solicitor.
3. Since, for reasons into which I need not go, the Court of Protection is not engaged in this case, Rules of the Supreme Court PD 59 paragraph 10.7 1(b) applies to the case. That provides that where a party to proceedings is a patient, and the case is not governed by order 59 rule 23, (as this is not) and there is a consent order disposing of the proceedings before the court then, if on consideration of the documents the court considers that the consent order should be approved, the matter will be listed without any party being represented and the order made in open court. Hence the listing of these matters today.
4. I have considered these papers. In particular, I have considered the joint opinion of 2nd December 1999, prepared by Lord Lester QC and Miss Beverley Lang. I have not the slightest doubt but that the consent orders are properly put forward and I make the orders sought by the Official Solicitor.