Who is the nearest relative?
Section 26 of the Mental Health Act 1983 states that a person’s nearest relative is normally the person closest to the top of the following list;
Those entitled to act as nearest relative include both “whole blood” and “half-blood” relations though “whole blood” relatives are preferred. In the even that two people meet a criteria the elder relative is considered to be the nearest relative.
Relatives living abroad, separated spouses and those under the age of 18 are discounted.
Though the general rule is that the person highest up the list is considered to be the nearest relative if someone lower down the list is the carer of the patient, or lives with the patient at the home where they “ordinarily reside” they will be the nearest relative.
In the event that it is unclear who the nearest relative is the Local Authority must in good faith decide who the person “appearing to be” the nearest relative is.
The nearest relative’s duties, powers and responsibilities include the following;
Failure by the Local Authority to comply with their obligations is capable in some cases of rendering treatment unlawful per S-C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus), Re  Q.B. 599.
In the case of the case of GD v Hospital Managers of the Edgware Community Hospital  EWHC 3572 (Admin) it was held that detaining a patient under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was unlawful as consultation with the nearest relative was not meaningful. Mr Justice Burnett stated:
“They set in motion a course of events which was designed to leave consultation with GD’s father to the very last moment, and thus seriously inhibit the chances of his having any effective input into the process and the chances of his having an opportunity to make an objection. In those circumstances, what in my judgment they contemplated could not properly be considered consultation at all.”
Under Section 29 of the Mental Health Act 1983 the patient, any relative, person who lived with the patient at the time of detention or the AMHP can apply to replace the nearest relative. The case law suggests that AMHPs account for the overwhelming majority of such applications.
The grounds for replacement under section 29 are as follows;
The body of case law in respect of Section 29 is almost exclusively concerned with unreasonable objections to applications for admission or guardianship. The test for unreasonableness was established in W v L  QB 711 by Lord Denning which established an objective test of reasonableness.
It has proven to be a very high hurdle for any nearest relative to pass. Due to the inherent imbalance between the often medically unqualified nearest relatives and doctors it is difficult to establish that an objection is reasonable.
The then Lady Justice Hale in Smirek v Williams  4 WLUK 235 said the following;
“… this case illustrates several aspects of the mental health law which give rise to the greatest possible sense of injustice on the part of patients and from time to time their families … it illustrates the overriding of the views of the nearest relative, and in practice how difficult it is for the nearest relative to avoid being found unreasonable if his views differ from those of the hospital”
Mark Pritchard is available in section 29 cases acting for both the Local Authority and nearest relative.
82 King St,
T. 0161 236 1133
Keep up to date with Central Chambers news by subscribing to our RSS News Feed by clicking the link below.