Challenging Compulsory Admission to Hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983

Abstract

The Mental Health Act 1983 provides for compulsory admission to hospital, under criteria designed to ensure individuals are not detained wrongly. This article examines the primary legal means by which compulsory admission can be challenged. Habeas corpus and judicial review offer means of examining the legality of a decision, based on the decision-making procedure. The efficacy of these mechanisms in mental health cases has come under scrutiny from the European Court of Human Rights. The Mental Health Review Tribunal conversely is equipped to examine legality based on the merits of the decision. The potential for conflict here, however, lies in the relationship between the medical and the legal approaches to addressing mental health issues. Interpretations and perceptions of ‘human rights’ are central to this topic and pervade this discussion.