|
|
| Articles
by Michael Curtis |
|
| Since
appearing in the landmark decision of Lyons v East Sussex
County Council (1988) 86 LGR 369 CA, the Michael Curtis has
acted for and advised care and health service providers and
regulators in numerous cases including many lengthy
cancellation appeals, representations hearings, judicial
review applications and prosecutions for regulatory offences. |
Mr. Michael Curtis
Crown Office Chambers
2 Crown Office Row
Temple
London EC4Y 7HJ |
Articles: |
|
|
| Subject |
Summary |
|
 |
|
|
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR REGULATORY OFFENCES UNDER
THE CARE STANDARDS ACT 2000: ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT? |
Under the former regulatory regime contained in the regulations enacted under the Registered Homes Act 1984, providers could be prosecuted for a breach of a regulation only where the provider continued to infringe a regulation after the service of a statutory notice on him by the regulator.
In effect, the offence consisted in the continuation of the breach. Given the reluctance in most cases of the previous regulators even to serve a statutory notice until a breach had occurred more than once, this resulted in a regime of 'three strikes and you're out'. |
Goto the Article |
|
|
|
| COSTS
IN THE CARE STANDARDS TRIBUNAL |
The
Care Standards Tribunal (CST), unlike its predecessor the
Registered Homes Tribunal, has the power to make costs orders
in limited circumstances. The power is an important one.
Cancellation appeals can last two weeks or more and cost as
much as a High Court action of similar length.
This
article considers and criticises the decisions of the CST to
date and seeks comprehensively to formulate the principles the
CST should apply when exercising its power to make an order
for costs. |
Goto the Article |
|
|
|
| PROCEDURE
IN THE CARE STANDARDS TRIBUNAL |
This
article is the latest in a series to consider the procedure in
the Care Standards Tribunal. It deals with three evidential
topics that frequently arise in practice |
Goto the Article |
|
|
|
|
|
|
