More Thoughts on Mr Webley

I’ve been thinking since the weekend about the recent judgment of Webley v St George’s (2014) the subject of my most recent post.  I’ve come back to it again because the more I’ve thought about it, the more it raises a whole host of problems of a legal and practical kind.

I want to explore them here, so we not only maximise the chance of avoiding such an outcome again, but also so that we consider the potential for managers to plan around this whilst we continue to debate what role our police should play in our extending mental health system.

If you haven’t read the previous post, please do so before continuing this one, otherwise it may not make sense!  And this post is not going to be an easy read, for some of those affected by the case’s implications!


Some of the legal issues that I see, which would benefit from closer examination —

  • The A&E Department’s legal duty to accept responsibility for MHA patients who are liable to be detained – Mr WEBLEY was subject to an application for admission under s2 MHA.  He was not (yet) an inpatient having not (yet) arrived at Springfield hospital where he was due to be admitted.  This was unavoidable: an unexpected medical emergency made it absolutely appropriate in the opinion of the paramedics overseeing his medical wellbeing in transit that he be taken to A&E.
  • Accident & Emergency departments are under absolutely no duty whatsoever to accept responsibility for the legal detention of patients where that legal custody was initiated by others.  Had a slightly different version of events panned out, they almost certainly would not have done:
  • Imagine a patient who had been detained by the police under s136 MHA and was being taken by police and ambulance to a Place of Safety at Springfield hospital, but again diverted to A&E because of an unexpected medical emergency, then would they have accepted legal responsibility for that patient pending assessment by a DR and AMHP?
  • I submit they would not have done so and would be under no duty to do so – so why did they do it here?!  Having discussed this with a good friend who is a security manager in an NHS acute hospital, he initially thought that security accepting the detention was right and proper, having reflected, he emailed to say he saw my point! – why would you do it, if you were an A&E department when you had no obligation whatsoever to do so?!
  • The police “further delegating” authority under s6 MHA to detain and convey – the Metropolitan Police were delegated the authority by the AMHP who made the application, the right to detain and convey to Springfield hospital.  Accepting that no AMHP could or would object to 999 services reacting as they saw fit to a medical development, once the patient arrives in A&E, they remain in police custody under s6 because the AMHP has delegated to them, not to anyone else.
  • Would the AMHP delegate to hospital security whilst in A&E if told of the circumstances and given the option? – maybe, but maybe not.  Some who have commented on social media have suggested they would be very unlikely to do so.
  • Do the police exercise unilateral authority to make that assessment on behalf  of the AMHP without consulting them? – probably not.  Again, suggestions today have suggested that they could not and this particular point of law was not under debate in Mr WEBLEY’s case.
  • The AMHP may have delegated authority to the police in this case – they may have delegated to nurses or paramedics in other cases – but they, the AMHP, remain responsible for the overall detention / conveyance.  So I submit that the duty AMHP should be re-contacted, told of the developments and afforded the chance to get involved again – even if this is via phone because they’re at the next job.


In reflecting on this case, though, you can see a whole stack of considerations that are about organisations avoiding the lion’s share of risk or liability.  A&E seem to have put themselves forward to accept responsibilities in areas where they simply could have said, “No”.  I wonder that this case makes it more likely that they will say “No!” in future?  This would mean, in such cases where A&E exercised that right, the police being expected to remain for protracted, indefinite periods of time whilst they re-contact the AMHP and try to negotiate an outcome that releases them.  What chance would there be that the mental health trust would despatch nurses to A&E to ensure the patient’s ongoing detention?  I would suggest there is little chance, because the patient was not yet an inpatient.

In fairness, if someone had been admitted to a mental health unit and suffered a medical emergency shortly after being accepted there as an inpatient, nurses would have accompanied them on the ambulance and they would have been there in A&E, ensuring they remained detained.  Whilst A&E security may have supported this process, given the less secure nature of the environment, it would still then been a legal detention led by the mental health trust, and only supported by A&E.  But that then raises the issue of why the legal position in which a patient happens to have a medical emergency, affects the care arrangements that can be enacted, given that everyone in the process would agree that the situation relates to: a patient with assessed mental health difficulties; a patient who is subject to legal frameworks because of their health problems; a patient who poses a certain kind of risk to himself, etc..  The only thing that is different in this case compared to a similar one that may have resulted had the emergency presented itself thirty minutes later, is the ability to argue legalities.

The AMHP was of a view that authority to detain / convey should be delegated to the police.  On the police’s part, they had agreed to escort someone in an ambulance from Wimbledon police station to Springfield hospital, which is just over 3 miles by either road you would choose .  It would have taken half an hour with the administration responsibilities at either end.  Had the AMHP said, “Oh, and when you get to hospital, we need to wait an indeterminate length of time” the police may not have agreed to accept the s6 authority, bearing in mind that they were under no specific obligation to do so.  Yet a diversion to A&E whilst en route to Springfield, does amount to them becoming involved for an indeterminate period in ongoing healthcare management.  Some would ask: is this a role for our police service?


And guess what all of this debate about?! – organisations:  their resourcing issues and liabilities.  It is therefore not about Mr WEBLEY or patients like him who should be at the centre of our decision-making.  There is an extent to which it doesn’t actually matter who is keeping patients safe in these circumstances as long as someone is – but the reality of our developing interface is the need to see organisations working more closely, in partnership. << This is the phrase we hear when others want to see greater police commitment to certain issues: I submit it is a two-way street!  Few managers in any policing, health or social care agencies will have sat down during discussions to ask the question: “Who looks after the detention of patients in A&E if they are diverted there having become unwell after the MHA application but before arrival at the identified hospital?” and everyone will feel it unfair and unreasonable if the fingers point at them.

I suspect we just haven’t really thought about this: and since I anticipate that this case will make A&E reflect upon the extent to which the put their arm into a mangle, it will then fall upon the police to ensure people’s ongoing security – thus further criminalising the entry process to our mental health system – unless we do think about it.  The only way around that is to consider in advance of these kinds of events what the solution might be.  I wonder whether police officers might ask, ahead of accepting s6 authorities, “If we get diverted to A&E and it looks like we’ll be there for hours, what’s the plan?”

Then we’re straight back to the very same dilemma for AMHPs that we see in other areas of their work:  we see it when they are undertaking assessments in private premises, or where patients who are passively resistant are refusing to consent to admission.  AMHPs are often backed up professionally by no-one at all in the important, legal work they do – responsible for everything, whilst having control of nothing.  They are often spinning plates, coordinating multiple statutory duties at once with only one of them on-call out of hours.  I really hope no AMHP sees it as a criticism any of them to suggest that if the police were to put in a call to say, “We had to divert to A&E and anticipate being here for hours”, there will be little support on which an AMHP can draw.  The answer is likely to be, “Sorry, there’s nothing I can do.”  Whether that AMHP would think it acceptable for the police to delegate further to hospital security pending further assessment / treatment of the patient, I don’t know.

What I do know is this >> A&Es are under no particular duty to do what was done in Webley v St George’s and to be frank, I wonder why on earth they’d ever consider it!

IMG_0053IMG_0052Winner of the President’s Medal from
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award.


27 thoughts on “More Thoughts on Mr Webley

  1. As an alternative argument, perhaps we could look at this the other way – that it is the police who are accepting responsibility over and above their powers in law? Legally a ‘place of safety’ is listed as a hospital, and the only power police have is to remove the person to a place of safety for assessment by a doctor or AMHP.

    Arguably, once the patient arrives at the (any!) hospital then the police have NO powers to continue detaining them, at that point the legal responsibility transfers to the Hospital, as they are, in law, now in a place of safety – and it is for the hospital staff to take it from there, not for the police to bargain with hospital security over responsibility, or to remain with the patient until the hospital can assess them – the police could be argued to have no legal powers for any continued involvement in the care or supervision of the patient once they have delivered them to a ‘place of safety’, that is their power in law, and is discharged on arrival.

    Far from the hospital having no obligation to accept the patient, I would turn it around and argue that they had no power to refuse to accept them, as the duty of care automatically transfers to them as a ‘place of safety’ once the patient passes through those doors!

    1. Legally a POS is defined ib Sec 135(6) as “residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under part III of the NAA 1984, a hospital as defined by this Act, apolice station, an independent hospital or care home for mentally disordered persons or any other suitable palce the occupier of which is willing to temporary to receive the patient” & the willing bit is very important. I have been placed in the position where the local MH Trust was not willing to accept/receive someone after the execution of a 135(1) Warrant! Also then the police saying no thank u & there is no social service provsion of a POS.

      Legally no the managers have to be willing to accept the person. That is why it is sometimes so difficult. So it really is about working together, but that is also difficult when everyone can & does say no not me guv it’s you & that serves no one well.

      1. No, I think you’ve missed my point, its down to the statutory construction.

        Its not

        ‘a police station, an independent hospital or care home for mentally disordered persons or any other suitable place
        the occupier of which is willing temporarily to receive the patient’

        ‘a police station, an independent hospital or care home for mentally disordered persons
        any other suitable place the occupier of which is willing temporarily to receive the patient’

        Compare with S55 definition of a place of safety (which applies only to part iii of the act) which qualifies hospitals differently from police stations and prisons

        ‘means any police station, prison or remand centre, *OR* any hospital the managers of which are willing temporarily to receive him,”

  2. I think that MH Trusts and Acute Trusts should have been thinking through the scenario described above as it must have happened on numerous occasions without the catastrophic injuries sustained in this case. From their end they are often presented with situations where detained pts have to be contained within A&E or acute wards – just as you describe in the s136 scenario for eg. It isn’t a huge step to think what happens if…? I haven’t read the transcript but I assume the MH Liaison Team at A&E were alerted/consulted once the pt arrived and yet didn’t alert the AMHP to the changing situation?

    Spinning plates is exactly what AMHP’s are asked to do and I wonder what would happen if they decided to work to rule? I am sure the LA liability was considered alongside the other action and they will be aware of that.. What would have happened if the AMHP was alerted? We wont ever know in this case but you can be sure LA legal departments and AMHP managers will feel they have been ‘put on notice’.

  3. I have both thought about this situation before & been in very similar circumstances more than once. I have thus far been v lucky in terms of outcomes.

    On a good day or at a job interview I might claim that I have managed this by utilising good risk assessment & risk management skills & by using my excellent communication skills & by encouraging interagency working. But it’s more likely that I’ve managed it by going the extra mile (sometimes at personal risk) & by blind luck & by arguing with all involved & by dragging other agencies & individuals to really indulge in partnership working to fill the gaps. I often find myself referring to Secs 18 & 137 & 138 = liable to lawful detention, in legal custody, unlawfully at large & no a 135(1) warrant is not needed officer honest!

    But in order to do that the medics & I have had to be able to write on the pink forms where the bed is. Often we are not in that position & are left hoping & managing. It is v v difficult, almost impossible to mobilise any response from police or ambo without a bed!

    As you point out AMHPs are responsible for everything but in control of nothing. I will also remind peeps that AMHPs are not part of a 24/7 999 service or resourced or supported in any way like a blue light service. It often strikes me that we either turn up to MHA assessments on the bus or in our own cars while everyone else turns up in pairs, in the company vehicle, blue lights & all. Then when we get to the hospital I gotta pay to park in the car park. I have actually had a ticket when admitting a patient to a hospital. They never ticket the ambo or police car! It is often suggested that I travel with the patient, but I have no medical training or training in restraint or control & no one ever offers to take me back to get my car.

    Maybe AMHPs should be more 999 but remember often we don’t need to be – most MHA assessments happen without the police being asked to support.

    In terms of working to rule – again thought about that, but it’s not that straight forward. As things stand its impossible to hold others to the Code of Practice (COP).

    If someone needs to go to A&E then they need to go & we need to work together without finger pointing. Maybe we really should be in this together but that solution is above my pay & grade.

    BTW I would probably answer the phone & attempt to be helpful, but really I have probably by then been at work since 08.00 & have a life & a wife & kids & don’t get overtime & that = EDT. Though I & colleagues have been known to return. Indeed increasingly we are having to return because the first time there was no bed. It’s the worst position to be in = wanting to detain someone with no bed.

    1. Interesting that you state AMHP not part of 24/7 999 service as I and others see you as such and think that is the common view .Maybe no lights and sirens but everyone refers to you, everyone waits hrs for you to turn up, everyone sees you as holding the decision as to whether someone has to be detained .

      Most of these situations would be described as emergencies – esp by carers/supporters and occ pts.But by police as well. These are mostly out of hours events but when bed needed and not there than you are very much the emergency service spinning proverbial plates.Bad for all but much worse for the patient

      Working to rule may be a cohesive response that will very quickly highlight the deficiencies in the system.Otherwise where is yr voice on this? The Radio 5Live Investigates report covered it well and gave AMHPs a springboard for responding so take it and run with it.Finally an opening where you can say it as it is

      The Webley situation shouldnt arise again but it will unless everyone is very clear where their legal responsibilities lie and now to plug the gaps..There should have been simple written protocol and forward planning but it didnt happen.We can change this for others

      1. I agree that it is a very common if incorrect view. Remember being an AMHP is usually only a part of any social workers role, its often an add on for which we are paid either an allowance or get a couple of extra incrimental payments. But really it’s not about or indeed worth the little bit of extra £ – it is really not worth the effort for that reason. The point is that we are not simply waiting around for MHA Assessments we are expected to do so much more e.g. Community Care Assessments, BIA, Safeguarding, Tribunal Reports,etc & carry caseloads.

        I agree that often these situations are urgent but if you look at the timescales within the Act they don’t really reflect this e.g. 5 clear (7) days are allowed between Med Recs & Valid Med Recs are valid for up to 14 days. BTW a valid Med Rec for a Sec 3 needs to have the where medical treatment is (bed) but often this info is missing = not valid & then the bed is sourced miles away in another part of the country. The MHA, even the amended one, is still very much based on the 1959 Act & is probably not fit for purpose. But it does seek to protect the rights of the individual & safeguard against an over zealous state.

        Thus far we have not been good at organising ourselves & to a great degree are taken for granted & day to day we are trying & are expected to simply get on with the task at hand. There are protocols & policies & of course there is the Code of Practice. But these are often ignored or simply interpreted to suit, plus often nothing in this is simply.

      2. Ps sometimes the delay is a reflection of how difficult it is to co-ordinate a response from various individuals & organisations that need to be there. E.g. a Sec 12 medic has to agree to be available to attend any assessment. it seems that the local MH Trust here has gently reminded medics that they should only be carrying out the Sec 12 role outside their core hrs. Add the need for a LD or CAMHS medic & you can add to the delay.

        As an AMHP I can only request that people attend – I cannot compel.

    2. While paramedics and police may turn up in pairs have a think of what their roles are. If there’s a medical emergency 1 medic will deal with the patient while the other drives (some areas now just have drivers with first aid training due to cut backs) and the police are there in case the patient needs restraining. Bearing in mind a C and R team usually has 5-6 people in I then coping with 2 untrained cops isn’t bad going I would argue.

      Sounds like your under staffed and under resourced which is what I hear a lot from other MH service providers (for example no staff to collect AWOL patients when their location is known). However that shouldn’t mean the responsibility is passed to a different under staffed and under resourced organisations only that one has less training and experience.

      I’m fairly sure the MH trust have a legal obligation to supply enough staff to meet demand. Like it or not demand is increasing.

      1. We are under staffed & under resourced , like many others & thats why we should all be in this together & are all responsible. Remember the police are not required or invited to attend the majority of MHA
        Assessments that take place. It just feels that way to the police sometimes.

        I am very often grateful for the support afforded to me by the police as neither my diary nor mobile phone afford me much protection from harm.

        Most AMHPs are not employed by MH Trusts but by LA’s.

  4. Inhumane,ridiculous and costly on all fronts to wait until court cases force any services hand.Demand is increasing because of head in the sand approaches and in some cases a lack of very basic legal safeguards. The level of additional distress and harm caused to people and their families gets lost in debate when the ‘pass the patient’ game is played is off the scale.

    While professionals and managers and emergency responders repeatedly and continually pass the buck (anger preventing me from finding another term at present ) people are harmed, people commit suicide, people are criminalised.All because the paid people in the process cant or wont do what they are meant to. Yes I know there are plenty of good souls with good intent out there yet you still experience the same scenarios week after week after week.

    And if anyone is thinking ‘we don’t get paid enough for this’ remember that Carers Allowance is £58.75 p/w , the job is 24 hours a day, 365 days a week with no clocking off , no going home after the horrendous shift, no support, supervision or training, no annual leave, no sick leave. That is stress.

    There is nothing person centred about MH Care, it is rarely about putting the individual’s need first, ‘cover our backs’ first line approach for the cynical, cross our fingers for the kind, always ignore the carer/supporters account at beginning, middle , end of process.

    I go back to my original point. AMHP’s hold the key here and the powers bestowed on them probably mean that they can actually influence change using smaller steps than they realise. Incredibly stressful job and doesn’t need to be made more so by MH Trusts claiming to be acting ‘in partnership’ Not from where we are standing. My Gran used to say ‘ You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas’. Same analogy. All MH services look the same to the people with distress.

    1. I wouldn’t disagree but I would remind you that AMHPs & other MH staff are parents & sometimes also carers & users themselves & within their families & social networks they will know people who are = 1 in 4.

      AMHPs hold only a small key – but again I think we could do more, but we are trying in my bit of the world to hold the MH Trust & Commissioners to account.

      So in the meantime I guess I will continue to cross my fingers & buy myself some flea powder. But then again many of my colleagues in the MH Trust are also decent a resonable & caring people.

      1. I know and don’t want the good people drawn to this work to get lost in the mire or tarnished with the same brush. And that is what happens. Like it or not. Let alone the low morale that is palpable.

        And the knock on effect is that those in distress know that and can feel like an added burden to social workers that they recognise as trying to help. It is always the one or two words of kindness , a simple act of compassion that gets remembered even at people’s lowest ebb or at their most disturbed.

        And if I extend the compassion to you and your workforce colleagues doing the best you can then what about the impact of stress on your own MH? So in everyone’s interests to shout loud

  5. You are right when you say police often aren’t needed but they are often used as the emergency MH responders along with the LAS ( or just as often not) in London. Because there is no crisis service to offer support out of hours.The MH Trust don’t see this as a priority – apparently everything is working just dandy.

    From ‘welfare check’ to responding to any other alert or concern. It is the police’s experience, it is the ambulance services experience, it is the experience of people in distress.Problem then occurs is that when they request MH services to come out no one / no bed available and police are left on premises. Adds to the mess of planned assessment delays that you describe. And adds hugely to the risks involved.

    Can’t really see how the MHA works in individual’s interests if the scenarios we are all so familiar with are apparently within the law and continue. 80% of those assessed under MHA are detained so that is what most people think AMHP’s solely do. There is no understanding that this is an add on role. But what you also describe implies a discretionary element to your employment contract so possibly easier to withdraw from role. Imagine what would happen if nationally you all did that? To make the point that the system is failing. Can’t see what is left apart from this if all else has failed.

    And because of the likely involvement with the police at any stage of MH crisis the link is formed with AMHP’s being emergency responders.And to be fair if you/ s12 Dr are actually giving telephone advice to police officers and ambulance crews on how to manage the crisis then that is probably a fair assumption for someone to make.
    So emergency service – yes you are

    1. Neither my colleagues haev to continue being AMHPs – that is very clear. It is the LAs duty to provide enough AMHPs, the number is not defined. I have thought out loud about handing the card back to my employer, while being clear that I would be happy to have it back when they & others sort some of these issues. I have imagined the look on their faces & to be fair we might get there by default. I don’t think being an AMHP looks like a job people want to do moving forward.

      I am not sure that the figure is as high as 80% but then again I don’t trust stats. They take no account of referrals that don’t end up as MHA Assessments.

      I agree that it is a fair assumption & one that my mum shares (but not a correct one) & I think we should be organised & resourced differently & work in a way that is intergrated.

      But as things stand we are only an very urgent service in certain circumstances. That is just the reality of the way it is, in my part of the world.

      I am only sometimes giving advice because I have left my number & over the years people have it kept it & use it. I am happy enough with that, but that is an informal arrangement & not one my better half always approves of.

      1. 80% figure provided in public FOI response by local Trust- apparently national figure is 79%.Maybe one of the few useful stats,

        There is an alternative (as opposed to anti psychiatry ) local community movement here in response to crisis services being in crisis. So if alerted will turn up and ‘relieve’ the police and then think about what’s best and safe to do.Works well enough at times, not so much at other times. Sort of a reaction SAS for MH crises – totally organic, ordinary people ,out of the system with tacit approval from the police !

        Look after yourself. With all my ranting I can still recognise a good ‘un when I see them !

      1. Local community movement sounds interesting & I can see the ups & downs & where & how it might work & the the impact/limit of risk on this. But sounds good.

        & thank u 🙂

        take care

  6. How about parity between mental and physical health? There used to be a view that all general hospitals should contain mental health wards. Shouldn’t a&e departments be properly staffed to be able to manage mental and physical emergencies?

  7. Austerity measures affecting all parties in this case only accentuate the tendency to protect the resources at their disposal. This is never more so than where indeterminate demands are placed on their time. In this instance and as you say, surprisingly A&E agreed to pick up the tab. This was never, ever the case in my experience. How many years is it since the Bradley Report was published? Austerity seems to have kicked it into the long grass, despite it containing recommendations that sought to address some of the issues you discuss. I agree that the outcome here will serve to harden the resolve of informed decision makers to decline any similar request in future. Normal service will prevail and the Police will remain with the patient, who I turn will invariably be the political pinball in the game of ‘not mine’ decision making.

  8. If a S6 delegation is required what would be the opposition to the authority taking on the delegation charging the requisite fee for the personnel & equipment utilised in the operation. The delegation of a transportation procedure means in essence that the relevant trust for whom the AHMP works were then free of any requirement to provide the necessary resources to transport the patient to hospital. Delegating the transportation to the police and local ambulance service to conduct the operation places the burden and expense of providing such a provision onto the authorities accepting he delegated authority.

    What if the police and local ambulance agreed to conduct the service but would invoice the relevant trust or authority for the resources expended. The police have a price list for such contingencies, football clubs are invoiced throughout the nation every week when police officers turn out to police football matches.
    Just because the police have all the bells and whistles which can be utilised in such transportation circumstances such as personnel trained in restraint and secure vehicles does it then make them the default freebie service which can be called upon because the relevant authority have not resourced themselves adequately to conduct such procedures.

    The resources that the police use to conduct such tasks on behalf of such authorities have to be diverted from policing operations and have been paid for out of the policing budget. Those resources are not sat around doing nothing waiting to be given a task. Such diversions only result in police officers being drawn away from crime fighting.
    As was mentioned in the article all of this debate is about organisations, their resourcing issues and liabilities.
    If an AMHP has to dash off to another job why can they not refer back to their relevant organisation to provide the resources? AMHPs do often find themselves alone attempting to work with partner agencies to provide resources. They are themselves employed by a trust with a multi-million pound budget. Should it not be for the AMHP and their trust to source such resources.

    The fact that the police stepped up to the mark on this occasion to fill the gap was all to the profit of the trust that employed the AHMP. So the next time such an incident occurred would the same blueprint be rolled out and the police take the hit on resourcing again, along with all subsequent consequences that it can bring, which in this case resulted in the matter ending up in court

    My local police force have had to constrict their resourcing significantly as have the Metropolitan Police, making hundreds of employees redundant, and as a result had to restrict the services that they can provide to allow the core policing role to function. As a result of this constriction many more callers are diverted to the more appropriate authority to deal with their matter, be it the local council, health authority, or Citizen’s
    Advice Bureau.

    It is my belief that there should have been resources set in place and funded by the relevant trust which could have been called on by the AMHP in such a situation as this. By playing the brinkmanship card in such situations in the expectation that other authorities will step into the breach to fulfil the shortcoming and lack of resources of another authority is inexcusable. If there is a requirement then it needs to be resourced and planned for in advance. As a result of this incident should other authorities now be guarded as to accepting such delegations and question why the relevant authority is unable to fulfil their role.

    1. I think I get that – but will make the following observations. Most AMHPs are employed by Local Authorities, some are seconded to MH Trusts & generally neither the LA nor the MH Trusts have ever had the infrastructure in place to support risk & MHA Assessments in community settings. I think they should, but its a fact that they don’t & traditionally the police have filled the gap. It has become more of an issue over recent years & that has to do with the squeze on public services. Some would even blame the bankers.

      In terms of being on the receiving end of all this, either as client or family/carer or even frontline staff etc – they/we dont care who does it, as long as someone does & of course they & the public at large (my mum test) think & are told/allowed to believe by our politians & bosses that the systems are in place already to do it. It is only when they directly experience the difficulties directly that they stop to think – “hang on a minute, that’s just not right! it cant be! There must be a bed! It must be somebody’s job to do that”. It is – its all of us.

      So its is back to patnership working on the front line & doing together the best that we can.

      1. Consultation doc looks to me like s136 will be extended in to the home/private premises.It will be seen as a pragmatic way round the problem of AMHP’s not attending.

        This of course then criminalises ppl in severe distress- a s136 is under PACE and shows up on visa applications and DBS (CRB) requests.Let alone upping the stigma and potential for conflict. Really hope it does not go this way because LA/MH Trusts didnt say it as it is and failed in their duty.Backward step

    1. You could try complaining to the Local Authority (who licenses the AMHP and authorises their professional warrant) or you could speak to a solicitor to take legal action against the AMHP / Local Authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s