K v Harrow Crown Court

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MISS M MCINTOSH (instructed by Levenes Solicitors, Wood Green, London N22 8HF) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR J D WHITLEY (instructed by Legal Services Department of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust)appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT ____________________

It is unnecessary to read subsection (2)(b) and (c). Subsection (3) provides for an appeal in specified cases. It provides:

That is not this case either, because the Magistrates' Court did have power to pass a section�37 order and, in fact, they committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence because they thought that it was a case where a restriction order under section�41 of the same Act might be appropriate. The remaining provisions of subsection�(3) are not relevant.

He went on to say that the only alternative to a section�37 order would have been a custodial sentence. He concluded that section�37 of the Mental Health Act was the best route for the applicant's improvement and for the protection of others. He went on finally to say that he had to think long and hard, and that what had taken up most of his time was whether or not to impose a section�41 restriction order, which, in the event, he decided not to do.