Draft Mental Health (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201-

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 4 May 2010 regarding: Draft Mental Health (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201-.

Decision Reference: MD-HSS-2010-0024
Decision Summary Title :	Draft Mental Health (Amendment No 3)(Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Decision Summary:	15 April 2010
Decision Summary Author:	Assistant Director Corporate Planning and Performance Management		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Summary of proposals for States Assembly. Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969		Date of Written Report:	April 2010
Written Report Author:	Advisor on Mental Health Legislation		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Draft Mental Health (Amendment No 3)(Jersey) Law 201-
Decision(s): The Minister approved the Draft Mental Health (Amendment No 3)(Jersey) Law 201- and determined that it should be lodged au Greffe as soon as is practicable
Reason(s) for decision: The amendments serve to make the existing law Human Rights compliant and amend the age of a child from 16 to 18 years as defined in the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child.
Resource Implications: This is dependent on the increased number of applications considered by the Tribunal. An additional cost of £1,500 per annum is considered appropriate.
Action required: Request to be made to the Greffier of the States to lodge the draft Law for debate by the States at the earliest opportunity.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Health and Social Services
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Draft Mental Health (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201-

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT No 3)

(JERSEY) LAW 201-

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

FOR STATES ASSEMBLY

APRIL, 2010

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT No. 3) (JERSEY) LAW 201-

INTRODUCTION

Further amendments to the “Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969” are necessary to remedy interference with the rights of individuals, which are defined under the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as updating some procedural and operational matters for the sake of law revision.

Informal discussions have been taking place on the subject of a new Mental Health Law for Jersey, to replace the existing 1969 Law, as well as the introduction of new legislation to provide for mentally disordered offenders and also for adults with incapacity. These matters are now in the process of being formalised in order that detailed consideration and consultation on them can begin during 2010.

As the introduction of a new replacement Mental Health Law is likely to follow after the introduction of the two new separate pieces of legislation mentioned above, its introduction is considered to be several years away. It is therefore necessary to update the existing legislation with the additional human rights provisions by amendment to cover the intervening period.

This report has been prepared following consultation with senior mental health service staff involved in the operation of the 1969 Law, the Law Officers Department, the Viscount’s Department, Jersey Focus on Mental Health, as well as the Bailiff and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Mental Health Review Tribunal on those changes which will specifically affect the operation of the Tribunal.

The changes currently being proposed are summarised below and have been subject to detailed legal advice from the Law Officers Department and a comprehensive human rights audit.

The Minister for Health and Social Services has signed a statement to the effect that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the “Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000”, the provisions of the projet de loi to be lodged au Greffe are compatible with the Convention rights.

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT No 3) (Jersey) LAW 201-

EFFECTS OF THE LAW AMENDMENTS:

1. Redefine a child as a person under the age of 18 years. Previously a child was defined in the law as below 16 years. The amendment brings the law in line with the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child.

2. In relation to applications for detention in hospital, amendments to the wording have been made for clarity

3. Two new appeal provisions for discharge to the independent Mental Health Review Tribunal have been introduced for patients who are liable to detention in a hospital under existing 28 day or one year detention orders.

4. With respect to Guardianship, two new provisions have been added. The first clarifies the powers of a Guardian, as well as being more specific on the residential requirements and conveyance powers in respect of a person made subject to Guardianship. The second provides a new appeal provision for discharge from guardianship for such persons.

5. A new appeal provision has been introduced for a person subject to Guardianship who, it is recommended, should be transferred to a hospital for treatment.

6. The existing power of the Minister to discharge a patient from detention in a hospital or subject to Guardianship has been removed. The Minister’s present discharge powers are being transferred to the independent Mental Health Review Tribunal.

7. For clarity, the powers of the responsible medical officer (i.e. a Consultant Psychiatrist) to discharge a patient from hospital have been made more specific.

8. The amendment now makes clear that the Viscount, Deputy Viscount or any sworn officer of that Department may be appointed as a Curator by the Royal Court.

9. The maximum number of Medical and Lay members that may be appointed to the respective Tribunal panels of such members has been increased from 5 to 8, so as to assist availability if it proves to be necessary to do so.

10. A new provision has been introduced requiring Tribunal members to retire upon reaching the age of 72 years, the same as for Jurats. Also provisions have been made more specific in relation to the actual time when a member’s term of office will expire.

11. Further clarifications as to the role of a Deputy Chairman of the Tribunal have been made.

12. A patient will now be able to make a second application for discharge to the Tribunal, if a previous application in respect of the patient has been withdrawn, so long as the new application is made within the time limits prescribed in the Law.

FINANCE AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

This is dependent on the increased number of applications considered by the Tribunal. An additional cost of £1,500 per annum is considered appropriate.

Page of 4