Changes to police powers relating to mental health and places of safety

Written by: Amy Street
Published: 29 November 2017

On 11 December 2017, significant amendments will come into force altering the power of the police to detain people who appear to be suffering from mental disorder. This blog post is intended to highlight the fact of the amendments, outline some key changes and point to sources of further information.

The relevant powers are currently contained in sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“MHA”). Section 135 requires the grant of a warrant by a magistrate; s136 does not.

From 11 December 2017 there will be in force:

amendments to ss135, 136 and 138;

new ss136A, 136B and 136C; and

new regulations, namely the Mental Health Act 1983 (Places of Safety) Regulations 2017 (setting out circumstances in which a police station may be used as a place of safety; requirements when a police station is used as a place of safety; and persons to be consulted) (“the Places of Safety Regulations 2017”).

Costs and Compensation in Closure Orders

Written by: Anthony Searle
Published: 27 November 2017

Where the police are unsuccessful in a closure order application there is no presumption that there be no order compensating the Respondent for financial loss. Unlike when considering the position on costs, the court’s focus on an application for compensation should be on the respondent’s behaviour, not that of the police, so held the Administrative Court in R (Qin) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 2750 (Admin).

Tagging requirements in SOPOs are lawful

Written by: Cecily White
Published: 19 November 2017

In R (on the application of Richards) v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police (UKSC 2017/0090) the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal against the imposition of a tagging requirement in a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (“SOPO”). The undisturbed judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Richards) v Teesside Magistrates’ Court [2015] EWCA Civ 7; [2015] 1 WLR 1695 endorses (and perhaps extends) the purpose and effect of imposing qualified restrictions on sex offenders.

Police cannot charge for football match-day policing on public land

Written by: James Berry
Published: 13 November 2017

Can the police charge a football club for match day policing on public land immediately outside a stadium, where that land is largely under the control of the club? No, the Court of Appeal re-affirmed in Ipswich Town Football Club v Chief Constable of Suffolk [2017] EWCA Civ 1484.

Liability of police misconduct hearings for discrimination

Written by: Jonathan Davies, Elliot Gold
Published: 10 November 2017

The Supreme Court has held in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 65, that police misconduct hearings no longer benefit from judicial immunity in respect of discrimination claims. They also held that the Chief Constable is vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of such panels. However, the decision related to an internal panel under the old regime when a misconduct hearing panel was chaired by an assistant chief constable. Three awkward issues arise:

Whether its reasoning applies to panels chaired by a Legally Qualified Chair (‘LQC’) under the new regime;

If so, whether the Chief Constable is legally responsible for the acts of an independent panel or whether the LQC and the other members of such panels would be liable as a panel;

If the LQC and panel members are potentially liable in damages in their own names, regardless.