Give us a call on 0141 375 9000 (Open Mon-Fri, 9:00am-5:00pm)
or fill in the form below and we’ll be in touch as soon as possible.
RM V The Scottish Ministers (2012)
We have represented thousands of patients and their Named Persons in Mental Health cases since 1999 and have developed a national profile in the field of Mental Health Law. One of our most significant successes was at the Supreme Court, London.
As a direct result of this case, legislation was introduced extending patient’s’ appeal rights across Scotland.
The Case
The appellant was a patient who had been compulsorily detained since 1995. The patient believed that their detention was in conditions of excessive security, which affected his quality of life, liberty and prospects for release. He wished to be transferred to an open ward where his quality of life would be greatly improved.
Section 264 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment)(Scotland) Act 2003 gives patients who are detained in hospitals under certain types of orders the right to apply to the Mental Health Tribunal for a change in their security.
However, as key terms in Section 264, remained undefined by the Scottish Government since 1 May 2006, section 268 was not in effective operation and therefore the patient could not apply to the Tribunal and remained detained in conditions of excessive security.
The Ruling
The argument was that the inference drawn from the part of the act in question should have been in effective operation by 1 May 2006. This was supported by the fact that there were other sections of the Act which Parliament had set no deadline for their coming into force.
The counter-argument from the Respondent was that the sections were “in force” but did not yet “operate”. Operation would not occur unless or until the necessary regulations were decided upon, and the failure to do so did not change the intentions of the Scottish Parliament.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The Court found that the failure by Scottish Ministers to draft and lay the regulations before the Scottish Parliament prior to May 1st 2006, and their continued failure to do so, was unlawful.
Immigration Case
The Client is a Zimbabwean national who claimed Asylum in the UK due to his sexuality and political opinion. He feared that he would be persecuted as a result of both matters upon his return to Zimbabwe. His Asylum claim was refused by the Home Office and the client exercised his right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration & Asylum Chamber.
The Case
His Asylum Appeal took place in December 2016. It was argued that the client would be at real risk of persecution on account of both his sexuality and political opinion if he were to return to Zimbabwe. After considering all evidence, the Immigration Judge issued a determination allowing the client’s appeal.
The Home Office, however, submitted an Application for Permission to Appeal against the decision of the Immigration Judge, stating that the Immigration Judge made a legal error in granting the Client’s appeal. This Application for Permission to Appeal remained under consideration by the Tribunal for several months.
The Ruling
The Tribunal refused permission to appeal stating that there were no errors in the Immigration Judge’s determination. The Home Office did not renew their Application for Permission to Appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
As such the decision of the Immigration Judge made in December 2016 stood and the client was granted refugee status in June 2017. After a long wait, the client now has 5 years leave to remain in the UK as a refugee.
Personal Injury Action
Our client was working as a bus driver in Glasgow when her bus was hit from behind.
Initially the injury was thought to be sciatica, which she had previously suffered from. We ingathered all medical and physio records and instructed a Consultant Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon to meet and prepare a medical opinion, which stated it was an exacerbation of a pre-existing injury and area of degenerative change and was not sciatica. We were thereafter able to negotiate our top line valuation for the injury without having to go to Court. We were also able to obtain damages for services rendered by her family whilst she was injured and we recovered wage loss for the time she could not work, due to injury. The client was very pleased with the settlement.
If you would like to talk to a Solicitor about an accident you have been involved in, please call us on 0141 375 9000.
Our client was working when she was injured through no fault of her own. Given our knowledge and experience of dealing with such cases, we were able to negotiate an excellent settlement at the top end for the type of injury sustained. Our aim is to help all clients achieve fair compensation, as quickly as possible.
Kevin P. Redford
Senior Solicitor
Give us a call on 0141 375 9000 (Open Mon-Fri, 9:00am-5:00pm)
or fill in the form below and we’ll be in touch as soon as possible.