IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v7y2018i2p12-d137934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-Making Behaviour under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Its Impact on Mental Health Tribunals: An English Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Glover-Thomas

    (School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK)

Abstract

In England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983) provides the legal framework which governs decisions made concerning the care and treatment of those suffering from mental disorders, where they may pose a risk to themselves or others. The perspective of the patient and the care provider may conflict and can be a source of tension and challenge within mental health law. Through access to a mental health tribunal, patients are offered the apparatus to review and challenge their detention. With detention rates under the mental health legislation rising exponentially, this is having a knock-on effect upon tribunal application numbers. As there is a legal requirement to review all cases of individuals detained under the MHA 1983, understanding the key drivers for this increase in detention is essential in order to understand how to better manage both detention rates and the upsurge in tribunal caseloads. With the increase in overall activity, mental health tribunal workloads present significant practical challenges and has downstream cost implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Glover-Thomas, 2018. "Decision-Making Behaviour under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Its Impact on Mental Health Tribunals: An English Perspective," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:12-:d:137934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/2/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/2/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    2. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    3. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, 2022. "The Case Study of Los Angeles City & County Fraud, Embezzlement and Corruption Safeguards during times of pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 593-610, September.
    4. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    5. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    6. Rudolf URBAN, & Roman URBAN, & Lukáš ŠTĚPà NEK, 2016. "A New Approach To Risk Assessment Based On The Semantic Value Of Expressions," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Peter Taylor-Gooby, 2008. "Sociological approaches to risk: strong in analysis but weak in policy influence in recent UK developments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 863-876, October.
    8. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    9. David Demeritt & Henry Rothstein & Anne-Laure Beaussier & Michael Howard, 2015. "Mobilizing Risk: Explaining Policy Transfer in Food and Occupational Safety Regulation in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(2), pages 373-391, February.
    10. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    11. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    12. Jerry Busby & Melissa Sedmak, 2011. "Practices and problems in the management of risk redistributions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 259-279, February.
    13. Eyert, Florian & Irgmaier, Florian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44.
    14. Karen Yeung, 2018. "Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-523, December.
    15. Manuela Moschella & Eleni Tsingou, 2013. "Regulating finance after the crisis: Unveiling the different dynamics of the regulatory process," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 407-416, December.
    16. Dibb, Sally & Ball, Kirstie & Canhoto, Ana & Daniel, Elizabeth M. & Meadows, Maureen & Spiller, Keith, 2014. "Taking responsibility for border security: Commercial interests in the face of e-borders," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 50-61.
    17. Bogna Janik & Katarzyna Maruszewska, 2020. "Valuation of the Environmental Effects of Socially Responsible Investments in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Hiriart, Yolande & Martimort, David & Pouyet, Jerome, 2010. "The public management of risk: Separating ex ante and ex post monitors," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 1008-1019, December.
    19. Elizabeth Fisher, 2008. "The 'perfect storm' of REACH: charting regulatory controversy in the age of information, sustainable development, and globalization," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 541-563, June.
    20. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:12-:d:137934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.