We represented our client in the First-tier Tribunal, securing a positive outcome which resulted in a conditional discharge from hospital and the removal of a disputed proposed condition.
Background
We had represented our client over an extended period, supporting him through different stages of detention, treatment, and gradual community testing. Throughout that time, we worked closely with his clinical team, care co-ordinator and supported accommodation provider to ensure that progress in hospital was matched by realistic and safe planning for life in the community.
At the Tribunal hearing, all parties agreed that our client had made exceptional progress. He had engaged consistently with treatment, demonstrated insight into his mental health, and successfully completed a significant amount of unescorted leave, including overnight stays in supported accommodation. The clinical evidence was unanimous in supporting conditional discharge.
The Disputed Condition
One issue, however, remained in dispute. The hospital proposed a specific condition which our client accepted reluctantly. However, we considered this unnecessary and disproportionate in light of his history, current risk profile, and the safeguards already in place. We argued that the condition added nothing meaningful to risk management. We also argued that it went beyond what was required to protect our client or the public.
Our Submissions
We advanced submissions focusing on:
- proportionality,
- least restrictive practice,
- and the importance of tailoring conditions to actual rather than hypothetical risk.
We emphasised our client’s long-term stability, strong adherence to medication, abstinence from substances, extensive community testing without incident, and the robustness of the proposed aftercare package.
Outcome
The Tribunal accepted our submissions in full. While ordering conditional discharge, it declined to impose the disputed condition, expressly finding that it was not necessary. In doing so, the Tribunal reinforced the principle that conditions must be justified by evidence and should not be imposed simply as a matter of caution.
This outcome reflects careful preparation and sustained involvement with the client over time. It also reflects constructive engagement with the wider multidisciplinary team, combined with clear and focused advocacy at the hearing itself. Most importantly, it ensures that our client moves forward under conditions that are proportionate, fair, and aligned with his recovery.
Our client was represented by Adam Marley.
GT Stewart continues to specialise in complex mental health tribunal work. This includes contested conditional discharge cases and challenges to overly restrictive proposed conditions. Find out more here.
