The responsibilities of Approved Mental Health Practitioners

The High Court has confirmed the limits to the responsibilities of Approved Mental Health Practitioners, write Jill Mason and Lucy Johnston.

In DD v (1) Durham County Council (2) Middlesbrough City Council [2012] EWHC 1053, a patient sought permission to bring proceedings against two local authorities for false imprisonment and breaches of his human rights.

His complaint related to his treatment while detained in a psychiatric unit following the recommendation of AMHPs employed by and acting on behalf of the named authorities. Section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act) requires claimants to obtain the court’s permission before bringing civil or criminal proceedings in relation to things done to them using the powers of the Act.

The claimant argued that an AMHP who intends to recommend that a person be detained under the Act, owes a duty to investigate the proposed place of detention, the location where the patient will be kept while there and the regime to which he will be subject.  

The claimant also argued that the AMHP in this case was not entitled to rely solely on current medical advice when deciding whether to recommend that he be detained under section 2 of the Act for a period of assessment. He argued that the AMHP had an obligation to review a large quantity of past reports and notes, written over a considerable period of time. Had the AMHP done so, the claimant argued that she would have appreciated that a period of detention under section 2 was not necessary.  

The court rejected both of these arguments. It confirmed that AMHPs are not directly responsible for the medical or other regimes to which a detained person is subjected. Their responsibilities include recommending a person for detention under section 2 or 3 of the Act. These responsibilities have to be discharged in the light of all relevant circumstances, including the assessments of qualified doctors. An AMHP’s function does not extend to choosing an institution where the person is to be detained, “still less to researching the available facilities or to carry out a reconnaissance to assess their quality”. The AMHPs could therefore not be held responsible for the treatment of DD once he was detained.  

The court also confirmed that the AMHP had no duty to look back at the claimant’s old records, stating: “it was not for her to second guess the current medical advice.”  

Not surprisingly, the court refused to give the claimant permission to proceed with his claim.

Jill Mason is a partner and Lucy Johnston is an associate at Mills & Reeve. Jill can be contacted on 0121 456 8367 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Lucy can be contacted on 01223 222366 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..