No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Protection of Medical Men by the English Lunacy Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2018
Extract
Section 330 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, re-enacting section 12 of the Lunacy Acts Amendment Act, 1889, provides as follows:—
(1). “A person who before the passing of this Act has signed, or carried out, or done any act with a view to sign or carry out, an order purporting to be a reception order, or a medical certificate that a person is of unsound mind, and a person who, after the passing of this Act, presents a petition for any such order, or signs, or carries out, or does any act with a view to sign or carry out, an order purporting to be a report or certificate under this Act, or does anything in pursuance of this Act, shall not be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings whether on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on any other ground, if such person has acted in good faith and with reasonable care.
(2). “If any proceedings are taken against any person for signing or carrying out, or doing any act with a view to sign or carry out, any such order, report, or certificate, or presenting any such petition as in the preceding subsection mentioned, or doing anything in pursuance of this Act, such proceedings may, upon summary application to the High Court or a judge thereof be stayed upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as the court or judge may think fit, if the court or judge is satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for alleging want of good faith or reasonable care.”
- Type
- Part I.—Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1891
References
* The Act, save as otherwise expressly therein provided, came into operation on 1st May, 1890. (Sec 3.)Google Scholar
* “Reception order” means an order or authority made or given before or after the commencement of the Act for the reception of a lunatic, whether a pauper or not, in an institution for lunatics or as a single patient and includes an urgency order. (Sec. 341.)Google Scholar
* In the present paper, the protection of medical men alone will be considered.Google Scholar
* See. 29, subs. 6.Google Scholar
* Cf. Derry v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Cas., 337. Glasier v. Rolls. 42 Oh. D., 436. Angus v. Clifford, 1891, 2 Ch., 449.Google Scholar
* Of course these words mean defects falling short of insanity.Google Scholar
* Cf. the language of Jessel M. R. in Plimpton v. Malcolmson, 1875, L.R., 4 Ch. D., at p. 568.Google Scholar
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.