[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Ganatra, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Ealing & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1153 (18 July, 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1153.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1153

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Scott Baker)

		The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday 18th July, 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: This is an application for permission to appeal against orders made by Scott Baker J on 30th April 2002 when he dismissed this applicant's challenge to her detention pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Her case was that section 11(4) of that Act had not been complied with. Section 11(4) provides:

"Neither an application for admission for treatment nor a guardianship application shall be made by an approved social worker, if the nearest relative of the patient has notified that social worker, or the local social services authority by whom that social worker is appointed, that he objects to the application being made and, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, no such application shall be made by such a social worker except after consultation with the person (if any) appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient unless it appears to that social worker that in the circumstances such consultation is not reasonably practicable or would involve unreasonable delay."

2. The applicant's case was that her mother had objected to her admission for treatment. If that was so, then the detention purportedly under section 3 was unlawful. Scott Baker J heard oral testimony from the applicant, her mother, and Mr Gerber and Mr Reynolds who are social workers with special experience in mental health.
3. The applicant unhappily has a long history of mental disorder. On 19th January 2001 Dr Scott, who is the third defendant in the proceedings, made a written recommendation for the applicant's detention on the footing that she was suffering from mental illness and that the disorder was such as to make it appropriate for her to receive medical treatment in hospital.
4. On 24th January 2001 another doctor, Dr Peter Ellis, made a like recommendation. On the same day the social worker Mr Gerber telephoned the applicant's mother at home. He told her about the recommendations, but on his evidence she put the telephone down. Her evidence was that she objected to a section 3 order being applied for. Thereafter, Mr Gerber having gone on leave as I understand it, Mr Reynolds phoned the applicant's mother. But again, on his evidence, she put the phone down. Mr Reynolds wrote a letter to the applicant's mother as follows:

"I am writing to inform you that I have received two medical recommendations for your daughter ... to receive treatment in hospital under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

...

However, if you were to object, I would have no option but to make an application to the County Court for you to be displaced as Nearest Relative in order for your daughter to receive treatment.

I tried to phone you today but you terminated the call as soon as you knew I was telephoning from Walpole House. Would you please contact me as soon as possible to discuss this application under Section 3. If I do not hear from you by Friday, 26th January, I will go ahead with proceedings in the County Court."

5. On 26th January he wrote again:

"Further to my letter of 24th January, I write to inform you that I am of the opinion that an order under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 should be made in respect of your daughter, Pragna. I shall be making the necessary application to the Hospital Managers in this regard.

Whilst the current Section 2 order does not expire until 2nd February 2001, it is possible for Pragna to proceed on to Section 3 at any time before the Section 2 order expires, provided that the nearest relative does not object. For the purposes of the Mental Health Act 1983 you are Pragna's nearest relative. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that unless you inform me that you are objecting to Pragna proceeding on to Section 3 before 10am, Tuesday 30th January 2001, then the Section 3 order will commence at that time on that day.

If you do object, please telephone my office to inform me of your objection. If I am not available to speak with you on the telephone, you should speak with the duty social worker. Should you wish to write to me instead of telephoning, you must ensure that I receive your letter at Walpole House before 10am on Tuesday, 30th January 2001.

I would advise that if you object to Pragna moving on to a Section 3 order, I will be making an application at the Brentford County Court for you to be displaced as the nearest relative. You are entitled to seek independent legal advice in this matter and I would strongly advise you to do so."

6. Both of these letters were put through Mrs Ganatra's letter box. The judge was not satisfied that Mrs Ganatra understood the letters because, seemingly, her knowledge of written English is limited. But the letters demonstrated, as the judge found, the state of affairs as it was perceived by Mr Gerber and Mr Reynolds.
7. The judge proceeded to cite the evidence given by Mr Reynolds of an encounter with Mrs Ganatra on 29th January. Mr Reynolds had made a note of the meeting within 24 hours of it having taken place. His evidence was consistent with the note. This was his testimony as it was recorded by the judge:

"Mrs Ganatra happened to be visiting her daughter when I arrived on the ward to interview Ms Ganatra. I asked if I could speak with her about the application to detain her daughter. I explained that I had written to her twice and she had not responded. Mrs Ganatra said that she would not reply to my letters as Pauline Ford (a former head of the Mental Health Trust) had not responded to her letters of complaint in the past. I tried to point out that her complaint was not related to the issue of her daughter being detained under Section 3 MHA 1983. Mrs Ganatra declined to accept that these 2 issues, her complaint and her daughter's admission, were different and that I had no role or involvement with her previous complaint. It was during this conversation with Mrs Ganatra, that she said she takes letters that she receives to a friend who reads them to her. Mrs Ganatra did not say that she had not understood my letters. She said that she had taken them to a friend for her to read them to her."

8. Then the next passage recorded by the judge is as follows:

"Mrs Ganatra informed me that her daughter's admission to hospital had put her under a lot of stress and she was seeking treatment from her GP in respect of this. I said that if it was at all possible, I wanted to avoid having to issue proceedings in the County Court to displace her as Nearest Relative. Mrs Ganatra told me that her daughter did not suffer from mental illness at all but only from rheumatoid arthritis."

9. Then here is the final passage:

"it was difficult to ascertain Mrs Ganatra's clear views about Ms Ganatra's admission under Section 3... because she wanted to talk about her previous complaint about Pauline Forde and her own ill health. At one stage Mrs Ganatra said that she would not object, then she said she would. At the end of the interview, in order to clarify what her views were, I formally put it to her that I wanted to make a Section 3 application in respect of her daughter. I did so by saying to her: 'I am going to go ahead with making the application for admission under Section 3. Do you object to that?' Mrs Ganatra said that she would not answer my questions... At no point did it appear to me that Mrs Ganatra had not understood what I was saying..."

10. MS GANATRA: There is only Miss Ganatra here. You may not take any further of my 20 minutes discussing section 29 for a third party. I will have paid for this application.
11. MRS GANATRA: I am her mother.
12. MS GANATRA: I am not interested in any (inaudible) --
13. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: I am afraid you will have to be taken out of court unless you be quiet. I am sure it is much better --
14. MS GANATRA: I have paid for my time; what about yours?
15. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: I will continue with the judgment.
16. Mrs Ganatra's evidence was that she made it clear throughout that she objected to any application for a section 3 order. She said that Mr Reynolds' manner had been hostile and threatening. The applicant suggested that Mr Reynolds had locked her mother in the ward. The applicant gave evidence late in the proceedings to the effect that she had spoken to Mr Reynolds later on 29th January and he was then well aware that her mother had objected. Mr Reynolds was recalled and had no recollection of such a conversation.
17. The learned judge expressed his conclusions as follows:

"28. I prefer the evidence of Mr Gerber and Mr Reynolds to that of Mrs Ganatra and the claimant. I would add that in Mr Gerber's evidence he went into a little detail about the efforts that he had made to talk to Mrs Ganatra, even before his first attempted telephone conversation on 24th January, but to no avail. Mr Gerber and Mr Reynolds both struck me as patently honest witnesses and moreover extremely caring social workers in the mental health field. In my judgment they approached a difficult problem with extreme sensitivity. They were anxious to apply section 11(4) without pushing Mrs Ganatra one way or the other. They consulted with Mrs Ganatra, as they were required to do, and despite being given the opportunity she did not notify them, or either of them, that she objected to the application for a section 3 order.

29. I note Mr Gerber's evidence that Mrs Ganatra allows herself, and I would add perhaps unconsciously, to be manipulated by her daughter. It is, however, interesting to note that in Dr Collins' psychiatric report of 15th January 2001, dealing with events leading to the section 3 order in this case, there is this recorded at page 55:

`When asked about converting the Section 2 to a Section 3, Mrs Ganatra stated 'I am not objecting (but) Pragna is threatening me, an injunction against me, she will get angry with me, she will want to take me to Court.'

30. My conclusion is as follows: having heard the evidence I am completely satisfied that Mr Gerber and Mr Reynolds gave Mrs Ganatra, the claimant's nearest relative, a full and appropriate opportunity to notify them if she objected to an application for a section 3 order in respect of her daughter, but she chose not to do so. Accordingly, in my judgment, the detention was lawful and furthermore there was no breach of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, or any other provision of the Convention. Accordingly this application for judicial review fails."

18. The applicant has put in a large number of documents in support of her application for permission to appeal. The grounds themselves are in these terms, and I quote (one or two of the words are difficult to read):

"On 29/6/01 the claimant under her own name and her own legal rights obtained a legal discharge and declaration under R v Riverside (ex parte Hussey) from a drugged imprisonment without a warrant in contravention of Articles 6 and 7 European Convention of Human Rights. Lack of jurisdiction to reinstate. On 27/7/01 Mr Justice Scott Baker threw the claimant out into the street denying the claimant a judicial review and seized the case to legalise 28 illegal imprisonments in 19 years on the basis of papers not endorsed by the claimant which seemed to have effect on the claimant legal discharge and declaration on 29/6/01. On 29/4/02 Mr Justice Scott Baker well placed the final nail in the claimant's coffin conducting a dispute between a witness and the defendants expending the claimant's legal right to a judicial review."

19. The references there seem to be to matters said to have taken place after the relevant events in January 2001. I notice that 27th July 2001, a date referred to in the grounds, appears to be the date when Scott Baker J in fact granted permission to apply for judicial review (see his judgment of 30th April 2002, paragraph 3).
20. Miss Ganatra has put in a further document today, a lengthy affidavit, which I read before coming into court. I will just set out the first two paragraphs:

"1. ... this is my legal submission for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal for a New Trial Judicial Review of my Own, Protection against the Opponents, legal Release of my Court Case File numbered CO/1640/01 and Damages for illegal Violation out of my Court Case by Mr Justice Scott Baker, J Dickson and the Royal Courts of Justice. The Permission Application is listed as C/2002/0932.

The Opponents are Mr J Scott, West London Mental Health, the London Borough of Ealing, Metropolitan Police, the Secretary of State for England, the Health Authority, the General Hospital and the legal Injunction cited as my `Mother' FOR Incarcerations under the Mental Health Act."

21. Amongst many other things Miss Ganatra submitted to me this morning was that her opponents (as she called them) had been pursuing her and were seeking to reincarcerate her, and that Scott Baker J lacked jurisdiction to decide what he did decide on 30th April 2002. She has made many allegations against members of the court staff, Scott Baker J and others. Her protestations in court and on paper do not seem to me to be relevant at all to the correctness of what Scott Baker J decided.
22. I have done my best to look very carefully to see if there might be any basis on which his judgment ought to be upset. There is clearly none. He was plainly entitled to prefer the evidence of the social worker witnesses as he did. He dealt with the only live legal issue before him, which went to the legality of the section 3 detention.
23. There is nothing in this application. It is entirely misconceived and must be dismissed.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused. (Order not part of approved judgment)