Supreme Court Judgment on Section 117 Aftercare Services: Analysis and Implications
The Supreme Court has recently handed down a significant judgment in the case of R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] UKSC 31. The case revolved around the issue of which local authority was responsible for providing and paying for “aftercare services” under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for a particular individual.
The case involved a woman with treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder who was detained under the Mental Health Act. The dispute arose as to which local authority was responsible for her aftercare services following her second detention.
The Supreme Court held that the duty to provide aftercare services automatically ceases when a person is re-detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act. The duty only arises when a person ceases to be detained and leaves the hospital. Therefore, the duty shifts to the local authority where the individual was ordinarily resident immediately before the second detention.
The judgment reaffirmed the importance of determining ordinary residence by reference to where the person was living immediately before their last detention. It also clarified that the Mental Health Act does not contain deeming rules for determining ordinary residence.
This decision has significant implications for local authorities and the provision of aftercare services under the Mental Health Act. It also highlights potential future issues that may arise, particularly in relation to best interests decisions and the possibility of legislative changes in the future.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the interpretation of section 117 of the Mental Health Act and reinforces the importance of determining ordinary residence based on factual circumstances.