I’ve been hearing the phrase “Webley Handover” a lot over the last twelve months or so and it may justify some unpacking. I’m not sure where the phrase originated, but it arises from a civil case in 2014 where a man sued the Metropolitan Police and St George’s Hospital trust in south-west London after his father suffered live-altering injuries following police contact and a failure of supervision in an Emergency Department. It may need unpacking because the phrase is now being employed in a legal situation which is significantly different to the one under consideration by the court a decade ago.
And the specifics might be important —
Mr Webley was experiencing a mental health crisis in his own home and when police officers in London attended to deal, they faced some considerable threats of violence and he was arrested for an offence. Having been taken to police custody under arrest, he was then assessed under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and deemed to require admission to hospital under section 2 (for assessment). An Approved Mental Health Professional duly completed the application for admission to Springfield Hospital in south-west London and an ambulance was called to custody to assist in transportation. Police officers and paramedics were then delegated by the AMHP to take and convey Mr Webley to Springfield under s6 MHA. Whilst en route there, Mr Webley began to experience seizures of some description and paramedics determined it was necessary to divert to the Emergency Department for assessment and care.
By the time officers and paramedics were in the ED, Mr Webley remained someone subject to s6 MHA authority to convey, albeit that conveyance had been necessarily interrupted because of his condition. He was no longer under arrest in police custody and he was not yet a ‘sectioned’ patient because he had not yet arrived at Springfield Hospital. The AMHP’s delegated authority to act under s6 was to the police and paramedics, but obviously the ambulance service withdrew to attend other patients once they had arrived in ED. After Mr Webley was triaged and in a cubicle, discussion then began about whether the police could hand over to ED and withdraw.
AMHP DELEGATION
The judgment in this civil case made no mention of any further reference to the AMHP under whose authority the police and paramedics were acting. One might imagine,in light of this all being a legal process of compulsory admission, the AMHP should be informed of what had happened. After all, it may then be necessary to revisit the question of the s2 MHA application and in order to reconsider the situation, the AMHP would need to liaise with ED staff about what they felt was necessary from the point of view of seizures. None of that happened and I was surprised when I read this judgment years ago to find the court left the question untouched.
Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Police then had discussion with ED staff about them taking over Mr Wesley’s supervision or detention in the ED so they could withdraw. It was agreed in the civil case that officers had fully briefed the NHS about the background risks and legal context, the NHS had agreed to take over responsibility for Mr Webley once their security were in place and briefed and the police had not withdrawn until that was the case. After police withdrawal, there was a point where observations were not being adequately maintained and Mr Webley left the cubicle and the wider ED, accessing a high part of the hospital building from where he fell, sustaining serious, life-altering injury requiring ongoing care.
In the civil case, the Commissioner was found not liable for the injuries and their consequences, the NHS was found liable. In determining this liability, the court found the police had done things reasonable and discharged their duty of care to another organisation who had agreed to take on responsibility and had been adequately briefed on necessary risk information so they understood what they were agreeing to and they had been allowed sufficient time to get their staff prepared.
WEBLEY HANDOVERS
The phrase now seems to be used more widely, to refer to situations where officers have used section 136 MHA and attended an NHS location, whether that be a mental health Place of Safety (PoS) or an ED. It refers to the idea of making sure that any discussion about handovers ensure NHS staff are fully briefed, in agreement and given time to prepare to take responsibility. If police officers do this where a handover has been agreed as necessary by everyone involved, then their duty of care will have been discharged and no liability incurred if there is a serious untoward occurrence after the police leave.
One thing which struck me in the original Webley case was to wonder why ED would agree to take on repsonsibility given they were not under a legal duty to do so. It was also to wonder whether the NHS’s response to the judgment would be to simply advise ED staff not to take on responsibility for doing so, given that lack of obligation. Ten years later, as we see Right Care, Right Person (RCRP) discussion about the NHS taking on responsibility for supervision of those of us detained under s136 MHA, I wonder whether that may be a part of NHS managers’ discussions? I appreciate NHS England has agreed in the National Partnership Agreement for RCRP to taking over s136 detainees within an hour, but I can’t be the only one wondering how realistic some local NHS trusts may think this is, given they are working alongside police force using the power two thousand times a year (and not always in ways which the NHS believes represents appropriate or fair use) and not necessarily in receipt of additional resource or funding to enable this?
But “Webley handover” is now a part of the parlance: it refers to ensuring any handover between the police and the NHS is done professionally, appropriately and with a necessary sharing of information of legal and risk information, allowing the receiving trust to get their staff briefed and in position to know what they’re taking on. It’s therefore important to point out, if police officers fail to mention something that is relevant to the NHS’s management of risk OR in NHS managers agreeing to take over someone’s detention and care fail to brief staff thoroughly, those could be important factors if there were another civil claim or coroner’s hearing.
The Webley case is not a binding precedent, ultimately – it is a High Court ruling. All situations turn on their individual merits and remember: Webley wasn’t about s136 and it did not examine the legal question of a police handover of those detained under an AMHP’s delegated authority (s6 MHA).
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation. (c) Michael Brown, 2024
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 