F v West Berkshire HA

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/249

In re F (Respondent)

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 4° Maii 1989

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause In re F, That the Committee had heard
Counsel as well on Monday the 27th and Tuesday the 28th days
of February as on Wednesday the 18th, Thursday the 2nd, Monday
the 6th, Tuesday the 7th, Wednesday the 8th and Thursday the
9th days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the
Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court, of Penderel House,
287 High Holborn, London WC1V 7HP praying that the matter of
the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order
of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 3rd day of February
1989, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her
Court of Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed,
varied or altered or that the Petitioners might have such
other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in
Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as upon the cases of
Fiona Kinloch (by her mother and next friend Lesley Perkins)
and the West Berkshire Health Authority, lodged in answer to
the said Appeal; and Counsel having been heard as amicus
curiae and also on behalf of the Mental Health Act Commission,
the Intervenors in the said Appeal; and due consideration had
this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) of the 3rd day of February 1989
complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby,
Set Aside, save as to legal aid taxation, and that the said
Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this
House: And it is further Ordered, That the following Order
and Declaration be substituted for that of Mr. Justice Scott
Baker of the 2nd day of December 1988, as amended on the 16th
day of December 1988:

"(1) it is declared that the operation of
sterilisation proposed to be performed on the
plaintiff being in the existing circumstances in
her best interests can lawfully be performed on
her despite her inability to consent to it;

(2) It is ordered that in the event of a material
change in the existing circumstances occurring
before the said operation has been performed any
party shall have liberty to apply for such further
or other declaration or order as may be just";

And it is also further Ordered, That the costs of the said
Respondent Fiona Kinloch be taxed in accordance with Schedule
2 to the Legal Aid Act 1974, as amended, such costs to include
provision for three Counsel.

Cler: Parliamentor:

Oral Judgment: 4.5.89
Reasons: 24 5.89

HOUSE OF LORDS

IN RE F.
(RESPONDENT)

Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Griffiths
Lord Goff…