Consultation in relation to section 268 appeals against conditions of excessive security

Anlysis of responses report

Overview of responses

4. A total of 27 written responses1 were received. Annex A contains a list of respondents. Table 1 below shows the distribution of responses. One respondent wished to remain anonymous but the content of their response has been taken into account in preparing this analysis report. 70.4% of responses were submitted by organisations with 29.6% by individuals. Dumfries and Galloway Advocacy Services replicated many of the comments made by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance within their response. Not all respondents addressed every question and some respondents offered comments on matters out-with the scope of the consultation.

Table 1: Distribution of responses

Respondent Category Total Received % of Responses
Individuals 8 29.63
Local Authority 2 7.40
NHS 2 7.40
Other professional organisations 3 11.12
Professional representative organisations. 3 11.12
Service users representative organisations 2 7.40
Voluntary bodies 7 25.93
Total 27 100

5. The analysis of responses is largely qualitative. Due to the relatively low number of responses received and the fact that not every respondent answered every question the percentages quoted in this report should be treated as indicative and illustrative only.


6. An analysis of the responses received can be found at Annex B. No clear preference was expressed for a particular proposal. Not only is there a variance of views between respondent categories but also within respondent category. The majority of respondents who answered the question felt there was a need for a wider provision for an appeal against excessive levels of security. The majority of respondents who answered the question were not in favour of having a preliminary review to consider the merits of the appeal before a full hearing. Respondents views were split evenly with regard to whether more effective use could be made of recorded matters - although over a quarter of respondents did not offer a response on this matter. The majority of respondents who answered the question felt that the Tribunal should consider levels of security as a matter of course at a two year review.


Email: Mental Health Law Team

Back to top