Is the Mental Health Review Tribunal Inherently Unfair to Patients?

The Mental Health Act 1983 (UK), which governs the compulsory detention of psychiatric patients in England and Wales, includes a number of statutory safeguards to ensure that the patient's continued detention is not unlawful. One of these safeguards is the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). The primary role of MHRTs is to review the legality of a patient's detention in hospital and to direct discharge of those to whom the criteria for detention do not apply. Their powers, duties and procedures are contained within the Mental Health Act 1983 (UK) and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier tribunal) Rules 2008. To hear individual cases, tribunals sit as a panel of three: a psychiatrist, a lay person and a legal chairperson. Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) enshrines the individual's right to liberty and security, but also includes a provision permitting the detention of persons of unsound mind. The ECHR also includes the right for an individual to have a periodic review of his or her detention and the lawfulness of it, a function that is fulfilled by the MHRT system. Currently approximately 40 000 patients per year are detained under the Mental Health Act, and almost 22 000 appeals are made to the MHRT, of which 12 000 are heard, in over 600 locations. The aim of this article is to examine the evidence as to whether MHRTs are inherently unfair to patients and biased towards overcautious professionals, and consider this in the light of various changes to the MHRT system proposed and adopted over recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]