Lousia Ovington independent investigation report ... - NHS North East

CHAPTER 8 – USE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CODE OF PRACTICE
Chapter 8 – Use of the Mental Health Act and compliance
with the Code of Practice
At all relevant times in the period during which Louisa Ovington was receiving mental
health services, the legislation regulating the detention of mentally disordered people
was the Mental Health Act 1983, prior to its amendments in 2007. The Act was
supported by the Code of Practice (Government guidance) in force from 1 April 1999.
The preamble to the Code states: “The Act does not impose a legal duty to comply
with the Code but as it is a statutory document, failure to follow it could be referred
to in legal proceedings.” It is widely accepted as a baseline of good practice, from
which deviation requires justification.
The Act sets out the strict criteria under which persons suffering from various types
of mental disorder can be detained and the safeguards in place for such detention.
Distinction is made between those persons detained after, or during, involvement with
the criminal justice system and those who are detained without such involvement.
The following is (as accurately as can be established) a list of the occasions when
Louisa Ovington was detained in a psychiatric hospital under the Act:
• On 23 December 1995 Louisa Ovington was admitted to Hartlepool General
Hospital informally (i.e. without compulsory detention).
• From 24 January 1996 to13 March 1996 she was detained, while in hospital,
under Section 3 of the Act, which provides for detention for treatment for up to
six months, if certain conditions are met.
COMMENT
There is nothing to indicate that this was an inappropriate detention. Louisa Ovington
was suffering from psychotic episodes and at one point her behaviour became so
hard to contain that she was transferred to a psychiatric intensive care unit where
she could be better managed. She was only detained for two months, although she
was in hospital for longer. There was no evidence that she had recourse to any of the
safeguards under the Act - for example Mental Health Review Tribunals 91 or Hospital
Managers’ 92 review powers - nor that she wished to do so but was prevented from
doing. This detention however had highly significant consequences, for a patient
detained under Section 3 (and some other sections) of the Act acquires, through
the operation of Section 117, a right to free after care services. Section 117 of the
Act imposes a duty on local authorities and health authorities to provide after care
services once the patient is no longer detained. The right and the corresponding duty,
continue indefinitely, unless the authorities deem it no longer necessary (and they
have not done so in Louisa Ovington’s case). Therefore for all the periods of time
91 A review by a judicial body of whether the criteria for detention remain satisfied.
92 A review by specially appointed Mental Health Act managers as to whether the detention should remain in place.
127