Surrey Police vs PC & Ors

This case involved an urgent application by Surrey Police seeking orders to manage a mentally ill detainee, PC, highlighting systemic failures in public body collaboration.

TLDR:

• Surrey Police made an urgent application regarding detainee PC's mental health.
• The case highlighted systemic failures in communication and collaboration among public bodies.
• The court emphasized the need for better operational collaboration to avoid similar situations.
• PC was detained under the Mental Health Act but faced delays in receiving appropriate care.
• The Official Solicitor raised concerns about the legality and adequacy of PC's detention and care.

On 23 April 2023, PC was arrested for criminal damage. Concerns about his mental health led to his transfer to East Surrey Hospital, where he was given lorazepam and discharged to police custody. The police raised concerns about his discharge, but the Trust indicated that PC was to be assessed by the Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Service (CJLDS).

On 24 April 2023, PC's mental health remained an issue. The CJLDS nurse and the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) service were involved, but no immediate assessment was arranged. PC was kept in police custody under s136 MHA 1983. The police and other public bodies struggled to find a suitable bed for PC, leading to further delays and concerns about his welfare.

By 25 April 2023, PC's condition deteriorated, and he was placed in a body cuff. The police made an urgent out-of-hours application to the court to authorize the deprivation of PC's liberty in police custody. The court granted the application under the inherent jurisdiction due to the urgency of the situation.

The Official Solicitor raised several concerns, including the delay in mental health assessment, the legality of PC's detention, and the adequacy of care provided. The court endorsed guidance for future cases to avoid similar situations and emphasized the need for better collaboration among public bodies.

The court concluded that the local authority should pay the Official Solicitor's costs, as they should have taken a more proactive role in ensuring PC's rights and welfare during his detention.

Legal representatives: Mr. Justin Slater (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the Applicant, Mr. Ian Brownhill (instructed by The Official Solicitor) for the 1st Respondent, Miss Katie Gollop KC (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the 2nd Respondent, Ms. Amanda Scally (instructed by Surrey CC) for the 3rd Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Mrs Justice Theis

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1274 (Fam)