Law & Policy Annual Update 2025

In this end of year update we summarise key legislation and case law in England, Wales and Scotland during 2025. Click on the heading to access each piece of legislation/judgment. The information in this update is for educational purposes only and where needed advice should be sought on individual cases from a suitably qualified and experienced lawyer.

Legislation

England and Wales

Mental Health Bill 2025 (England & Wales)

The Bill (drafted under the new government) seeks to overhaul the long-standing Mental Health Act 1983, which governs detention and compulsory treatment for mental illness.

Among the proposed reforms: new safeguards, greater patient choice and participation, statutory care plans for detained patients, advance-choice documents (allowing patients to outline their treatment preferences), and stricter limits on detention for people with autism or learning disabilities (unless there is a co-occurring serious mental health condition).

The reforms aim to promote dignity, consent, and rights-based care.

This Bill could substantially change how mental health care is governed — affecting decisions on detention, treatment, and patient rights, which is highly relevant for mental capacity, best-interests decision-making.

This Bill started in the House of Lords and has passed through the House of Commons. The House of Lords are scheduled to consider final amendments to the Bill on 8th December before it goes forward for Royal Assent, so passing into law.

The 1983 Act is the legislation that currently regulates the compulsory detention and treatment of people with a mental disorder. The Government has said the purpose of the bill is to amend the “outdated” 1983 Act, by implementing many of the recommendations of an independent review of the Mental Health Act in 2018. The Government has said the bill would give more autonomy and voice to those with mental health conditions and address the disproportionate number of Black, Asian and minority ethnic people who are sectioned under the 1983 Act.

Changes proposed in the bill include:

Detention/compulsory treatment only when necessary + more frequent review & appeals

The Bill explicitly aims to “tighten the detention criteria … and provide for more frequent reviews and appeals of both detentions and treatment.

The Bill also elevates the requirement for a “care and treatment plan” for detained patients, strengthens patient involvement, expands rights to advocacy/nominated persons, and replaces the “nearest relative” default with a person chosen by the patient — all designed to ensure detention/treatment is more justified and subject to oversight.

Limiting length of detention for people with autism or a learning disability

The Bill removes “autism and learning disability” from the default list of conditions that justify long-term hospital detention under Section 3 (treatment). Under the revised Bill, civil detentions under Section 3 for those with autism or learning disability are only permissible if there is a co-occurring mental disorder that meets the usual detention criteria.

For assessment under Section 2 (i.e. short-term admission for diagnosis/assessment), the Bill limits detention for autistic people and people with learning disabilities to a maximum 28 days.

The Bill also places on commissioners (Integrated Care Boards / local authorities) a duty to maintain a register of people with autism or learning disability at risk of detention, and to ensure community support is available — reflecting the aim to reduce reliance on hospital detentions.

Removal of police stations and prisons as “places of safety”

The current Bill text removes police stations and prisons from the list of designated “places of safety” under the 1983 Act for people detained under sections dealing with mental health crisis (e.g. s. 135/136) or being transported to hospital.

That change remains in the Bill as of the November 2025 “ping-pong” stage (when Lords and Commons exchanged amendments).

The Bill also introduces a 28-day time-limit for transfer from prisons / other detention facilities to hospital for criminal justice patients needing mental health treatment.

The Bill is similar (but not identical) to a draft Mental Health Bill published in 2022 by the previous Conservative Government. That bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee, which published its report in January 2023. The previous Government responded to the joint committee’s recommendations in March 2024, but the draft bill was not introduced in Parliament before the 2024 general election.

The Bill will extend to England and Wales only (apart from the general clauses at the end of the Bill, which extend UK-wide).

Wales

Health and Social Care (Wales) Act 2025

This Act, passed by the Senedd Cymru and receiving Royal Assent on 24 March 2025, reforms both social care and health care law in Wales.

Key provisions include: banning for-profit providers in children’s residential care, foster care, and secure accommodation; and allowing direct payments under NHS Continuing Healthcare — giving eligible individuals more control over how their care is provided.

The Act also makes various amendments to existing social care legislation (notably the Social Services and Well‑being (Wales) Act 2014 and the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016) to improve how those laws operate.

This is a major restructuring of care provision in Wales, especially for children’s social care, and gives more choice to people in need of continuing healthcare under the NHS.

The Welsh Government issued a “Written Statement” on 16 July 2025, announcing consultations to support implementation of key parts of the Act — including (a) removing profit from children’s care services, and (b) enabling direct payments for Continuing NHS Healthcare (CHC).

For the provisions on children’s care: the consultation seeks to change registration, annual returns, and enforcement/monitoring regulations — which suggests that regulatory and guidance detail for providers will be provided before full implementation.

On the health-care side: the Act (Part 2) permits direct payments under NHS Continuing Healthcare. The Government has signalled its intention to bring regulations (and supporting guidance) into force in spring 2026.

More broadly, the existing statutory framework for social care professionals continues to operate under the earlier Acts (notably the Social Services and Well‑being (Wales) Act 2014 and the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016), and relevant Codes of Practice / professional guidance remain applicable.

For safeguarding, the relevant statutory guidance under the “Working Together to Safeguard People” arrangements has been updated — which complements aspects of the new legislation, even if the guidance is not solely for the 2025 Act.

Scotland

Care Reform (Scotland) Act 2025

This Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 10 June 2025 and received Royal Assent on 22 July 2025.

The Act makes provision for processing health and social-care information (including introducing a digital integrated care record for individuals), revises regulation and delivery of social care, and improves access to independent advocacy and support for unpaid carers.

The Act also creates a new statutory role, a National Chief Social Work Adviser, replacing the former Chief Social Work Advisor role, aiming to boost leadership and professional oversight in social care. Joanna Macdonald began her role as National Chief Social Worker this month moving from her previous role as Chief Officer of Clackmannanshire and Stirling Integration Joint Board. The new Social Work Agency is scheduled go live in April 2026.

The aim of the Act is to improve information flow, continuity of care (especially when individuals move between care settings), and to strengthen protections and rights for people in care and their carers.

This is a major social-care reform for Scotland that impacts how health and social care interact, and aims to strengthen legal protections for service-users and unpaid carers. It also moves toward a more integrated data/record-sharing regime, which may affect how care is planned and delivered.

Credit: The Supreme Court UK

Case Law

Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15

On 16th April 2025, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) handed down judgment in this long-running set of cases.

The cases concerned proceedings brought by NHS trusts seeking declarations that it was in a child’s “best interests” to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, and, at the same time, injunctions prohibiting disclosure of the identities of clinicians and institutions involved in their care.

The Supreme Court held that while courts have inherent jurisdiction (parens patriae + administration of justice) to grant such anonymity-protecting injunctions, those injunctions cannot be maintained indefinitely once proceedings conclude (e.g. after child’s death). They must be reviewed and orders continuing publication restrictions must be justified by reference to ongoing risk or other proper basis.

This case clarifies limits on confidentiality and reporting restrictions in end-of-life / best-interests litigation involving children. It draws a line between privacy during care and transparency / public interest after a case concludes.

The Court’s reasoning explicitly relies on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to respect for private and family life) invoked on behalf of the clinicians and hospital-staff whose identities the NHS Trusts sought to protect.

It also relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression / freedom to receive and impart information), invoked by the parents, who wished to be able to name and discuss the clinicians and circumstances of their children’s treatment. The tension at the heart of the case was the classic Article 8 v Article 10 balance.

The Court did not treat the ECHR rights as exclusive; instead it situated them within a broader common-law and statutory framework.

Key other legal bases / principles referenced:

• Common law inherent jurisdiction / open justice principle: The Court emphasised that courts have an inherent (domestic) power to grant or refuse anonymity / reporting-restriction orders. It held that those orders must be justified in the individual case, and that indefinite anonymisation orders are not appropriate as a matter of principle once proceedings have concluded.
• Domestic procedural law and principles around injunctions: The case concerned continuation of injunctions (reporting restriction / anonymity orders) originally granted in the proceedings under domestic law (family division, best-interests / children’s life-sustaining treatment context). The Court looked at the basis on which such injunctions could persist once the underlying substantive litigation had ended.
• Pre-existing domestic precedent and authority on open justice and reporting restrictions: The Court noted that while ECHR jurisprudence is relevant, domestic law (common law + statutory context) remains central, Convention case-law cannot alone furnish a sufficiently rich, detailed, case-by-case framework.
• Public interest in accountability and transparency in public healthcare: The Court acknowledged that clinicians working in public hospitals are “public figures” for the purposes of balancing rights under the Convention, which affects how much weight is given to free expression / public interest.

A key part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning was that while Articles 8 and 10 are “of unquestionable importance,” that does not mean that domestic legal disputes should be decided solely by reference to Convention case law. As the majority put it: there is “no hierarchical primacy” as between Article 8 and Article 10. Instead, the court must begin with domestic law and treat Convention rights as one factor in a broader balancing exercise.

The judgment confirms that any attempt to keep long-lasting (or indefinite) reporting-restriction / anonymity orders after the conclusion of proceedings must be carefully justified, and that indefinite secrecy is no longer acceptable as a default.

It clarifies that ECHR rights (Arts 8 and 10) can be determinative, but only within the broader domestic-law context; courts cannot rely only on “Convention jurisprudence” without reference to common law and the principle of open justice.

This is especially important for high-stakes “best interests / end-of-life” cases involving children.  It sets a precedent that once proceedings conclude, there should be a presumption in favour of transparency, unless there is a compelling and specific reason for ongoing anonymity.

Thank you for taking the time to read our end of year legal update for 2025, we will publish a new update when there is a significant change in the law to report. Please do feel free to share it for educational and training purposes. 

Please see our resources on the Adam Bojelian CIC website for more on healthcare law, policy and ethics and get in touch if you would like any education or training for your team.