Tribunal Solicitors 2016 - 2022
Briefly:
- In Tribunal processes, between 2016 and 2019, I was repeatedly and unlawfully declared to lack the mental capacity to represent myself or to select a representative.
- This was done to wrest control of the cases: a person who lacks such mental capacity must be represented by a solicitor who may even argue for the patient's continued detention, regardless of the patient's wishes.
- The aim appears to have been to replicate the conditions of my case before the Crown Court, in 2015, where I was reduced to a bystander and railroaded into a mental hospital.
The Tribunal of 2016
1. Everyone detained under section has the right to challenge his detention, once a year, before a panel of
the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Each panel consists of a judge, a medical expert (psychiatrist) and a lay member.
2. Under the rules of the Tribunal:
(i). a patient lacking mental capacity,
either to represent himself or to select a representative, must be represented by a solicitor.
(ii). A solicitor representing a person without such mental capacity must make decisions in the best
interests of the patient. He may ignore the patient's instructions, if he deems them not to be in the best
interests of the patient.
(a). A solicitor appointed in such a case may even argue in favour of the patient's continued detention,
though the patient wishes to be discharged.
3. Between 2016 and 2022, I sought to represent myself before the Tribunal.
4. I applied for my first Hearing in 2016. The Hospital's psychiatrist informed the Tribunal I lacked the
mental capacity to represent myself. Purely on the strength of that statement, the Tribunal declared me lacking the
mental capacity to represent myself. It appointed a lawyer to represent me.
5. I asked what criteria for capacity,
under the Mental Capacity Act, I lacked, what functions test had been applied - and when - to show I failed to meet
such criteria. They were forced to accept I had such capacity; I represented myself at that first tribunal.
(i). That Tribunal found against me. The Decision was unlawful:
it contains a dozen lies.
The Tribunal of 2017
6. In 2017, I applied for another tribunal hearing. A panel convened at the Hospital, in my absence. It decided I lacked the mental capacity to select a representative; I was less than a hundred metres away and had no reason to suspect my mental capacity was in question.(i). That Decision was unlawful; I was not given the opportunity to defend myself and no explanation was given as to why I lacked such capacity.
7. The Panel appointed a solicitor to represent me. I explained to him the Decision was unlawful and instructed him immediately to appeal it.
(i). He could not show the decision was lawful but he insisted on challenging it on the day of the Hearing. This was unreasonable:
(a). Each panel is comprised of different members: if you have three hearings in a single process, each could be heard by a different panel. I explained it was important the application be made immediately; the Tribunal could seek the reasons from the members of the panel who made the Decision. Were the question put to a panel, on the day of a hearing, it would be at a disadvantage - neither knowing the reasons for the Decision nor having time to determine what they might be.
(b). were the challenge successful, I should not have time to prepare my case. Were it unsuccessful, there would be no time to appeal that decision.
(ii). The Solicitor ignored these points and refused directly to file an appeal. A lawyer must uphold the law and represent his client as best he can; he should always follow reasonable and lawful instructions from his client.
8. At the Hearing, it was decided to postpone substantive treatment of the case: notice had been received that my case was being returned to the Crown Court.
(i). That case was separate and distinct from the application I had filed with the Tribunal; both must continue. If the Tribunal found me not to require detention under section, I should have been discharged.
(9). My solicitor refused to challenge the decision on mental capacity. He had previously said he would do so at that Hearing, instead, he suggested to the Tribunal that he write to the Crown Court, informing it the Tribunal had decided I lacked the mental capacity to represent myself.
(i). Instead of challenging the unlawful decision, he sought to use it to prejudice proceedings in another court.
10. Before the Crown Court, I argued I had the mental capacity to represent myself. It agreed.
(i). Now, a junior court was refusing to allow me to represent myself before it because it said I lacked the mental capacity even to select a legal representative, but a senior court (the Crown Court) simultaneously declared me to have such capacity and even permitted me to represent myself before it.
11. I explained to my solicitor the dignity of the court could not bear such a preposterous situation. I instructed him immediately to challenge the Decision of the Tribunal. He refused to do so.
(i). I made the same observation to the Tribunal. It stood by its Decision.
12. The Hospital's psychiatrist, one of the two on whose unsupported declaration the Decision I lacked capacity had been based, now admitted I had such mental capacity.
13. I sent the statement from that psychiatrist, declaring me to have capacity, to the Tribunal and the Solicitor. Still, the Solicitor refused to challenge the Decision, and the Tribunal to reverse it.
14. I had filed the application for a tribunal hearing in order to argue I was not mentally disordered or dangerous. It was clear, from letters the Solicitor wrote to the Tribunal and to other parties, he intended to argue I was mentally disordered and dangerous: he made no effort to challenge such statements, whenever they were made, and did make similar statements of his own to the Tribunal.
15. In February, 2018, I informed the Solicitor that, given the unlawful decisions, his refusal to challenge them, our incompatible views on my mental state and the risk I posed, the fact it was he, not I, who would argue my case, and he could argue his stated views rather than my own, I was obliged to withdraw my application.
(i). Rather than observe his duty to uphold the law and properly to defend the interests of his client, the Solicitor informed the Tribunal I was withdrawing my case.
16. That year, I had to forgo my right to challenge my detention before the Tribunal.
We encourage you to approach the people and organisations mentioned on this website and to request their response. We suggest you follow our guidance in doing so.
You may contact us directly.
