skip to main content

NR Objection to Section 3 — MRCPsych Paper B MCQ

Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.

HardMental Health LawNR Objection to Section 3MRCPsych Paper B

In England, a patient is detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which expires in 48 hours. Two doctors recommend detention for treatment under section 3. The AMHP has consulted the patient's nearest relative, who continues to object despite attempts to resolve the disagreement. The AMHP considers the objection unreasonable. Which statement most accurately describes the legal position?

Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.

Reveal the answer and explanation

Correct answer: D — The AMHP may apply to the County Court under section 29, extending section 2 while the application is pending

Explanation lettering: E = shown as A · D = shown as B · A = shown as C · B = shown as D · C = shown as E

The correct answer is B. Under section 11(4), an AMHP cannot make a section 3 application while the nearest relative objects; clinical necessity and two medical recommendations do not permit the AMHP to override that objection. If the objection is considered unreasonable, the AMHP may apply to the County Court under section 29(3)(c) for appointment of an acting nearest relative. When this application is made while the patient is detained under section 2, section 29(4) extends that detention until the proceedings are finally disposed of; if displacement is ordered, a further seven days are available to complete section 3 arrangements. A overstates the objection's effect. C is unlawful. D reverses the relevant distinction: the blocking power applies to section 3, not section 2. E cannot be used to circumvent section 2's maximum duration.

Reference: Department of Health, Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice, paragraphs 5.10–5.24 and 14.65, 2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396918/Code_of_Practice.pdf