The Court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's ECT determination but provided extensive guidance on the statutory framework. Lindsay J held that s 96(3)(b)(ii) requires the Tribunal (and Court on appeal) to be satisfied that proposed ECT is both 'a reasonable and proper treatment' and 'necessary or desirable for the safety or welfare of the patient', with the qualifying words 'for the safety or welfare of the patient' informing both limbs. The Court held that it should be slow to approve forced ECT against a patient's known wishes, that any deployment of force must be reasonable and proportionate, and that an ECT determination is a licence rather than a command — it does not mandate treatment but authorises it, leaving clinicians with a continuing duty of care. On standing, the Court held that s 163 should be read broadly to permit any person with a genuine concern for the patient's welfare (including a designated carer) to appeal, informed by the protective jurisdiction's approach to standing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.