No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
R. v. Manchester City Council, ex p. Stennett [2002] UKHL 34, [2002] 4 All E.R. 124 is the latest in a series of cases concerning the welfare of vulnerable members of our society and the scarce resources available to public authorities to meet those individuals’ needs. Earlier examples include the education of a child with special needs (R. v. Essex CC, ex p. Tandy [1998] 2 All E.R. 769), essential non-nursing care for the elderly or infirm (R. v. Gloucestershire CC, ex p. Barry [1997] A.C. 584), accommodation (R. v. Sefton BC, ex p. Help the Aged [1997] 4 All E.R. 532) and even access to potentially life-prolonging medical treatment (R. v. Cambridge AHA, ex p. B [1995] 1 W.L.R. 898). Ex p. Stennett concerns the welfare of another vulnerable group, those who have been compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.