Almost anywhere can be a Mental Health Act Place of Safety, in principle —
Subsection 135(6) outlines the definition and it includes “any other suitable place”, once it has listed local social services accommodation, a hospital or a police station. Of course, this “any other suitable place” option is subject to certain qualifiying criteria, covered in subsections (7) and (8). For example, if you want to remove me to my own home address as a Place of Safety, then you must have both my consent and that of my wife. If you want to remove me to a GP, you need the consent of someone at the surgery to allow it. Finally, all considerations about the suitability of a place are subject to the specific restrictions on the use of a police station as a Place of Safety, outlined in section 136A.
You may recall that legal restriction was imposed in 2017 when the law was updated and a police station may never be used as a Place of Safety for someone who is under 18yrs of age and it may only be used for someone over that age if three statutory criteria are met —
- There is an imminent risk of serious injury or death
- No place of safety in the force area can manage the person
- Use of a police station is authorised by an officer not below the rank of inspector.
Where those (paraphrased) restrictions apply, no police station can act as a Place of Safety for that particular person in those specific circumstances, even though it could be a Place of Safety for another person in another context.
So what happens if s136 MHA is first used by an officer in a police station and there is then a delay in removing them from the building to a location which can act as a Place of Safety for that person, for example in a mental health unit or Emergency Department? Delay could happen, for example, because of difficulty in securing an ambulance or police vehicle to undertake conveyance to the intended Place of Safety. It may mean the person was first detained in a building which can be a Place of Safety or some people in some circumstances, but not for that person in that circumstance.
So it is acting as a Place of Safety? – obviously not.
RESTRICTED BY LAW
Well, the starting point is the person detained under the initial s136 power must be “removed to or kept at a Place of Safety”, as soon as practicable after the s136 power is used. But as we’ve already understood, above, the person cannot, by law, be kept at a police station if they are under 18yrs of age or where the three statutory criteria are not met. There is a difference between holding someone at a location for the time it takes to organise the transport essential for their removal, and holding someone there as a Place of Safety under the Act because you intend to call an AMHP and doctor to assess them at that place. Time spent pending transfer from any location after use of s136 should be minimised and wouldn’t therefore count towards the overall 24hr time limit.
But what if that time is longer than anyone would wish? If the timescale from detention to conveyance was half an hour, I doubt anyone would care very much about the technicalities of when the “relevant period” clock begins … but we hear of some transfers taking many hours, because of ambulance service delays or a lack of available police officers to accompany the person, for example. It doesn’t really alter the legal principle at stake: no person may be kept at a police station as a Place of Safety if they are under 18yrs of age or where the three statutory criteria are not met and the ‘clock’ begins when the person is removed to a Place of Safety. So for any period that a person does remain there pending transfer, they are not being kept there as a Place of Safety, the law preventing such a building operating as such a location for that person in those circumstances.
Would this point apply to Emergency Departments? – yes, it would. Imagine the non-hypothetical situation where someone attends ED voluntarily and is completely dealt with for any injury or urgent medical concern they may have. Upon being discharged become distressed and agitated, the police are called with the officers detain the person under s136 MHA. There is then a delay (doesn’t matter how long) before conveyance can be organised to remove the person to a mental health unit Place of Safety. The time spent waiting would not count towards the 24hrs if the person was not being kept in ED as a Place of Safety, but merely pending the arrival of an ambulance, although ED can be a Place of Safety for some, it is not always a Place of Safety for all, unless being kept there for that purpose with the AMHP and doctor being called to arrange the necessary assessment.
So the intention at the point of “keeping” the person is key: are you keeping them just whilst you arrange transport, always intending another location be the Place of Safety; or are you actually holding them somewhere in order to summon an AMHP and doctor to commence the assessment?
CONVEYANCE
One side-issue: conveyance to a Place of Safety should ordinarily be an ambulance – chapters 16 and 17 of the MHA Codes of Practice (for both England and Wales) make this clear. That said, such a requirement is statutory guidance only, not the law itself – nothing in law prevents a police vehicle being used to convey, if the ambulance option has been explored and deemed problematic. We know on occasion, the paramedics cannot give an ETA for arrival, or offers a window of 6-9hrs and nothing prevents the detaining officers from exercising a judgement that it may be in the person’s best interests to expedite their removal to the correct location, rather than drag out their stay in place where the power was first used.
It will obviously be necessary to weigh specific factors in their particular circumstances, but where it is felt more appropriate than waiting a long time, nothing in law prevents it. So delay in expediting conveyance should only be restricted to situations where delay is for any police officers required. But whilst his observation reduces the potential to have the discussion about “keeping” someone, the substantive point remains —
Many places can be a Place of Safety, for the purposes of s135(6) MHA, subject to caveats. But that fact that somewhere can be a Place of Safety for some people, doesn’t mean it is always acting as such for everyone. It can only act as such a location, subject to the statutory criteria laid down in subsections (7) and (8), as well as section 136A and the Mental Health Act (Places of Safety) Regulations 2017. Where a location is prohibited from qualification for a specific person, we cannot then also argue that because the power of detention was first used at such a location, it is then acting as a Place of Safety even though the law says it can’t.
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation. (c) Michael Brown, 2022
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 