Article 3 risk
Reports address whether the impugned decision, typically removal, detention, or refusal of services, would expose the claimant to a real risk of treatment crossing the Article 3 threshold by reference to their mental state.
Case type
Psychiatric evidence in public law and judicial review usually goes to vulnerability, capacity, the impact of an impugned decision on mental health, or the appropriateness of community care or detention arrangements.
Psychiatric evidence in public law and judicial review is usually directed to vulnerability, to the impact of an impugned decision on mental health, or to the lawfulness of arrangements affecting a mentally disordered claimant. The audience is the Administrative Court and the report is written accordingly.
We instruct consultants experienced in writing for judicial review proceedings, including reports in support of urgent injunctive relief and reports for substantive hearings engaging Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
Reports are prepared under CPR Part 35 and may engage the Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 3 and 8), the Care Act 2014, and the Mental Health Act 1983.
Reports address whether the impugned decision, typically removal, detention, or refusal of services, would expose the claimant to a real risk of treatment crossing the Article 3 threshold by reference to their mental state.
Reports address the impact of the impugned decision on the claimant's mental health and on family and private life, supporting the proportionality assessment.
Reports address the psychiatric needs that any lawful Care Act assessment and care plan must meet, and the impact of any failure to meet those needs.
Reports address whether the claimant is a vulnerable adult under the inherent jurisdiction or lacks capacity under the MCA, supporting the appointment of a litigation friend or the engagement of safeguarding duties.
Tell us about your case and we'll match you to the right consultant, usually within 24 hours.