[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Rodriguez-Bannister, R (on the application of) v Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust [2003] EWHC 2058 (Admin) (20 August 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2058.html Cite as: [2003] EWHC 2058 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		20 August 2003

1. MR JUSTICE HOOPER: This is an application now made on behalf of the claimant that this application for judicial review be adjourned part-heard.
2. During the course of the hearing yesterday it became clear that the challenged decision related to the number of hours and one-to-one care which the claimant should receive. In the challenged decision, the defendant had referred to a "significant amount of support". During the hearing the defendant said, through counsel, that the claimant would receive no less than 28 hours per week for the foreseeable future. I should say that at the outset of the case there were other issues. It seemed to me that the claimant was suggesting that the only rational decision which the defendant could reach was to place the claimant in residential care, something which Spectrum had recommended. Spectrum is the charity which at the moment looks after the claimant. However, as the day wore on, it became clear that the only substantive decision that was challenged related to the number of hours of one-to-one care.
3. I asked the defendant whether it would be prepared to agree a period of some six weeks during which the claimant would be moved to Chy-an-Ross and during which he would receive one-to-one care of no less than 35 hours per week. The Trust indicated that it was prepared to take that course. I then, at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, adjourned the matter until this morning at 10.30. I made it clear that in the event of the parties not being able to reach agreement, I would resolve the issue of the challenge to the decision about one-to-one care as well as the procedural issues about which I have not yet heard any argument.
4. On behalf of the claimant a series of questions were then prepared for the defendant. Most of those questions sought to identify what would happen over the next period should this assessment be carried out in the way that was being suggested by the defendant. One of the questions in my judgment was irrelevant, namely asking the defendant to identify the evidence upon which it relied for its decision to provide 35 hours per week one-to-one care at Chy-an-Ross.
5. The defendant has provided answers to those questions, some three pages of detailed answers. It is clear that the defendant envisages a first stage which would be a visit to Hillside, where the claimant is at the present time, by Trust personnel to discuss the plans with the claimant. There would be a need for steps to be taken, including the identification of a key worker and the securing of any necessary training.
6. Miss Carrington tells me that the offer contained in this document is unacceptable. She tells me that Dr Shah, who has provided expert evidence for the claimant, is not at all happy with the suggested arrangements.
7. She then made an application for an adjournment to enable the claimant to obtain evidence to challenge what she says is a decision contained in this three page document. She submits that because it will inevitably take time to carry out the first stage, this whole matter should be adjourned.
8. Miss Richards opposes that application. She submits, and I agree with this submission, that the first stage will not take a considerable time. She has identified the ways in which that first stage can be carried out in a prompt manner and probably by the beginning of September, no earlier. She submits that this case has been going on for a long time and it is now time to draw a line and make a decision. I made it clear yesterday that in the event of an inability to reach agreement I would decide what I have identified as the challenged decision as well as the two procedural matters, and that is what I shall now do.
9. This application for an adjournment is, therefore, refused.
10. MISS CARRINGTON: My Lord, I am going to ask you for permission to appeal your Lordship's decision not to grant an adjournment in the circumstances of this case. That is the first matter that must be dealt with.
11. MR JUSTICE HOOPER: Yes. Do you wish to add anything to what you have said?
12. MISS CARRINGTON: No, I adopt what I said before.
13. MR JUSTICE HOOPER: I refuse permission to appeal.
14. MISS CARRINGTON: My Lord, my next request is that you grant me a stay while I go and ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal?
15. MR JUSTICE HOOPER: Well, what arrangements have you made for that, any at all?
16. MISS CARRINGTON: In the five minutes we have been outside court, none at all I am afraid. We can certainly approach the Court of Appeal, assuming they will hear us in the vacation. I would certainly say this is suitable for vacation business and is urgent, and grounds of appeal can be drafted over a couple of hours.
17. MR JUSTICE HOOPER: I am going to refuse you a stay.
18. MISS CARRINGTON: My Lord, could I ask you for reasons in respect of both of those decisions previously notified, I am sure you are aware, my Lord, that the Court of Appeal may have to revert to you in any event.
19. MR JUSTICE HOOPER: I will order a transcript of the short judgment I gave this morning.