[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Taylor, R (on the application of) v Haydyn- Smith [2005] EWHC 1008 (Admin) (10 May 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1008.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 1008 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		10 May 2005

MR JUSTICE CRANE:

1. Before giving detailed directions I should like briefly to record what has happened today. This application for judicial review relates to the question of compulsory medical treatment for psychiatric purposes of the claimant. After the claim was filed an injunction was ordered by Cooke J on 14 January 2005. On 10 March 2005, Hodge J refused permission on the papers and lifted the injunction, although, as I understand it, treatment has since been suspended.
2. On 25 April 2005, Munby J gave various directions. He dismissed the application for permission against the second and third defendants, but he envisaged in his order that the new second doctor might well be joined to the claim. That second doctor, Dr Gallimore, certified and reported on 30 April. Munby J plainly envisaged that there should be at an early date a two-day hearing at which permission would be dealt with and any substantive hearing. At the hearing it would also be decided whether the relevant doctors would be cross-examined.
3. The matter has come before me this morning with the best part of two days available. Unfortunately a number of things have happened which make it impossible for the case to proceed. The principal difficulty is that the new second defendant was inadvertently misled last week into thinking that there was simply a permission hearing today and realised only on Friday that there was the likelihood of a substantive hearing. At least two of the three doctors are not readily available today. If I were to order cross-examination of the experts there is plainly no time for the matter to be dealt with today, bearing in mind that I am not available beyond tomorrow.
4. It is not necessary to apportion blame, which certainly does not lie in one particular place. It must be accepted that the plan to have an early substantive hearing, if one was appropriate, has not been possible. In the result I have re-fixed the substantive hearing for 24 May 2005, having (as I shall in a moment) granted permission in relation to both the present defendants. As far as cross-examination is concerned, I am persuaded that the order should be made finally one way or the other by the judge who is to hear the matter, but it is to be hoped that there will be opportunity for that to be dealt with on paper, as the parties are content with that, in advance because unfortunately the date interferes with a family holiday of the first defendant. That I greatly regret, but in view of the urgency which was recognised by Munby J, and which I echo, and in view of the lack of alternatives which have been explored with the list office and the availability of others, there seems to be no alternative. I renew my apologies if that doctor has to be so seriously inconvenienced. I greatly regret that, but all the alternatives have been exhaustively explored.
5. I would be grateful if a transcript could be available in time for the next hearing so that it is clear to the judge who hears it in principle what has happened today.
(Following discussion between counsel and His Lordship the following order was agreed)

Upon hearing Ms U Burnham, Counsel for the Claimant, Ms N Greaney, Counsel for the First Defendant, and Miss S Broadfoot, Counsel for the Second Defendant,

AND upon the First Defendant undertaking not to medicate compulsorily the Claimant until the determination of the application for judicial review or until further order,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant has leave to amend the Claim Form as filed. Detailed grounds as against the Second Defendant to be filed not later than 13 May 2005.

2. Permission is granted to the Claimant to apply for judicial review against the First and Second Defendants.

3. The substantive hearing to commence on 24 May 2005. The hearing judge is to rule on the application for cross-examination of the three medical witnesses, if possible, by 20 May 2005 or alternatively in advance of the hearing. All parties accept that such ruling can be made on the papers.

4. Permission to all parties to file further evidence, if so advised, no later than 4pm on 17 May 2005.

5. Leave to all parties to lodge skeleton arguments and addendum skeleton arguments by 4pm on 19 May 2005.

6. The requirement for an acknowledgement of service from the Second Defendant is dispensed with.

7. The requirement for detailed grounds of resistance from the First and Second Defendants is dispensed with.

8. Costs reserved.

_________________________________