Ward v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - [2005] UKHL 32

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2004–05
[2005] UKHL 32

on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 1152

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

Ward (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others (Appellants) ON THURSDAY 5 MAY 2005 (Re-issued 10 May – paragraph 15 amended at lines 9, 10 and 11) The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Carswell HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Ward (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others (Appellants) [2005] UKHL 32

LORD STEYN
My Lords,
1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons which she has given I would allow the appeal and dismiss the claim against both defendants.
LORD HUTTON
My Lords,
2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it and for the reasons which she gives I would allow the appeal and dismiss the claim against both defendants.
LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY
My Lords,
3. The issue of principle in this appeal is whether, when issuing a warrant under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983, a magistrate has power to impose a condition that the constable executing it should be accompanied by a particular approved social worker and/or medical practitioner. The wording of subsection (1) shows that the magistrate has a discretion whether or not to grant a warrant.
4. Under the somewhat similar provision in section 15(2) of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913 it was necessary to name the constable and the doctor, but both of these requirements have been abolished. Now section 135(4) simply says that, when executing the warrant, the constable is to be accompanied by an approved social worker and by a registered medical practitioner. The contention for the Trust is that where Parliament has regulated, in this more relaxed way, the class of persons who are to accompany the constable, there is no room for implying any power for the magistrate to stipulate any particular member of that class.
5. In Attorney-General v Great Eastern Railway Co (1880) 5 App Cas 473, 478 Lord Selborne LC held that the doctrine of ultra vires
“ought to be reasonably, and not unreasonably, understood and applied, and that whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the Legislature has authorised, ought not (unless expressly prohibited) to be held, by judicial construction, to be ultra vires.”

Lord Blackburn said, at p 481, that:
“those things which are incident to, and may reasonably and properly be done under the main purpose, though they may not be literally within it, would not be prohibited.”

Here there is no express prohibition on the magistrate imposing the condition. So, looking at the matter reasonably, can imposing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ward v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] UKHL 32
Decision Date: 5 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ward v Metropolitan Police Commissioner involved the appellants, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another party, appealing against a decision of the Court of Appeal that had found in favour of the respondent, Mrs. Ward. The central issue in the case was whether a magistrate had the authority to impose conditions on a warrant issued under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983, specifically whether the magistrate could dictate the professionals who would accompany the constable executing the warrant. The case reached the House of Lords, where the appeal was ultimately allowed, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed.

The House of Lords found that the magistrate did not have the power to impose conditions on the warrant, such as specifying the professionals accompanying the constable. The court reasoned that such conditions would not be necessary to achieve the purpose of section 135, which is to protect vulnerable individuals believed to be suffering from mental disorder. The Lords emphasised that the statute did not provide for any such power and that implying such a power would not be necessary to make the statutory power effective. Furthermore, the court noted that the presence of specific professionals was not required for the proper functioning of the section, and that the prospective patient's civil liberties would be better protected by the professionals' duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in making their judgments.

The House of Lords also considered the applicability of certain safeguards from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to warrants issued under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Lords concluded that while it was possible that these safeguards applied, it was unnecessary to reach a final conclusion on the point as the warrant in this case was executed within the prescribed timeframe.

In light of these findings, the House of Lords allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim against both defendants. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and the potential consequences of misinterpretation on individuals' rights and liberties.

Orders