NO: C/1997/6217, C/1998/5413

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1640
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE      
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)                   
ON APPEAL FROM  QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
 
                                    Royal Courts of Justice
                                    Strand
                                    London WC2
 
                               Monday 22nd October 2001
B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE LAWS

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

WARREN'S APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Applicant did not appear and was not represented
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE LAWS: These matters are listed in open court in the following circumstances. The applicant was a mental patient detained at Broadmoor Hospital. The Official Solicitor has submitted consent orders in two long‑standing applications. He acts as the applicant's litigation friend. He has relied on an opinion given by leading and junior counsel to the effect that the applications in question have no chance of success. One of them was an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal made on 27th June 1996, refusing to discharge the applicant. The second was an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a certain instruction given by the Chief Executive Officer of Broadmoor on 18th February 1997, relating to possession of videos and computers by patients at the hospital.
2.	There is a certificate signed by Professor Anthony Maden on 25th May 2001, which certifies that the applicant is incapable of managing and administering his affairs by reason of mental disorder. The Official Solicitor, for his part, has filed a certificate of suitability and notice of change of solicitor.
3.	Since, for reasons into which I need not go, the Court of Protection is not engaged in this case, Rules of the Supreme Court PD 59 paragraph 10.7 1(b) applies to the case. That provides that where a party to proceedings is a patient, and the case is not governed by order 59 rule 23, (as this is not) and there is a consent order disposing of the proceedings before the court then, if on consideration of the documents the court considers that the consent order should be approved, the matter will be listed without any party being represented and the order made in open court. Hence the listing of these matters today.
4.	I have considered these papers. In particular, I have considered the joint opinion of 2nd December 1999, prepared by Lord Lester QC and Miss Beverley Lang. I have not the slightest doubt but that the consent orders are properly put forward and I make the orders sought by the Official Solicitor.