About Omiros
Omiros regularly represents clients at First-tier Tribunals (Mental Health), focusing mainly on cases with a forensic aspect as well as supervising his team within the Mental Health Department.
When necessary and appropriate cases are pursued to the Upper Tribunal (on appeal) and through the appellate courts.
Professional Credentials, Memberships and Accreditations
- SRA Regulated Solicitor
- Law Society Profile
- Mental Health Accredited Panel Member
- Member of the Mental Health Lawyers Association
- Ranked in Chambers and Partners
Cases
These appeals concern what a mental health tribunal should do when a patient has a representative appointed under rule 11(7)(b), but there is either (a) conflicting evidence about whether the patient has regained capacity to appoint their own representative, or (b) the patient objects to the representative and refuses to engage. The case raises important issues about balancing a patient’s right to effective representation and a fair trial with the need to maximise their meaningful participation and avoid unnecessary delays.
The Upper Tribunal provides guidance on:
- How to assess mental capacity
- The capacity tests relevant to tribunal proceedings
- When capacity should be assessed
- How fluctuating capacity affects rule 11(7)(b) appointments
- The responsibilities of a rule 11(7)(b) representative who believes their continued appointment is not in the patient’s best interests
It also explains what constitutes adequate reasons in tribunal decisions.
OO v (1) CNWL NHS Foundation Trust; (2) SoS for Justice: [2024] UKUT 190 (AAC)
This case is about procedural fairness and expert evidence in the mental health tribunal.
The responsible clinician and rest of clinical team had been supporting the patient’s conditional discharge for some months, and patient decided on that basis not to instruct an expert himself, but one business day prior to the hearing of the reference the responsible clinician issued an addendum report indicating that discharge was now opposed. In his report the responsible clinician deferred to the opinion of another consultant psychiatrist given in criminal proceedings relating to the patient, who was not available for questioning at the hearing. Various applications for postponement/adjournment made by the detaining authority and the patient were refused by the Tribunal.
Issue of equality of arms– I decide that in this case fairness required the tribunal to postpone or adjourn to give patient an opportunity to seek his own expert evidence to meet the expert evidence supporting detention (following Lord Mansfield CJ in Folkes v Chadd (1782) 3 Doug 157 at [159]), and/or to give the patient’s representative an opportunity to question the expert to whose opinion the responsible clinician deferred.
The Tribunal’s failure to do so meant that the patient was denied the effective judicial determination of his right to liberty to which he was entitled under the Mental Health Act 1983, even though the patient himself had a right to apply to the First-tier Tribunal: the patient was entitled to be treated fairly at all relevant decision-making stages (following Singh LJ in R (Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1812; [2018] 4 WLR 123 at [94]).
The appropriate remedy was to set the decision aside and remit it to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing.
R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 2
The patient had been transferred to a psychiatric hospital from prison, where he had been serving a life sentence. The First-tier Tribunal notified the secretary of state that he was suitable for conditional discharge. The secretary of state referred the matter to the parole board and refused to consent to the patient having unescorted leave in the community. The patient sought judicial review of his refusal and, when granting permission, the High Court made an interim anonymity order. When the claim was ultimately rejected, the judge declined to continue the anonymity order. Held that there was no presumption of anonymity in civil proceedings in the High Court relating to patients detained in psychiatric hospitals or otherwise subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. In each case the question was whether anonymity was necessary in the interests of the patient. A balance had to be struck between the public’s right to know what was going on in court and who was involved, and the risk of the patient’s rehabilitation being jeopardised by his identification.
AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2015] UKUT 659 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 106
The role of factual findings in relation to risk assessment; whether a Tribunal had made a factual error in reaching conclusions of fact; the adequacy of reasons relating to findings of fact – AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd and Secretary of State for Justice – [2016] MHLR 214 Points Arising: Acts taken into account in a risk assessment must be proved on a balance of probabilities. Facts and Outcome: In upholding detention rather than granting a conditional discharge, a Tribunal found that AM had been responsible for 2 of 3 rapes alleged against him (which had not led to charges or convictions) and so presented a risk of sexual violence that required assessment and treatment. This was quashed and remitted by the Upper Tribunal on the basis of errors of fact as to the forensic evidence in support of the allegations and the lack of reasoning.
Career
Omiros trained and qualified as a solicitor in 2003 whilst working for Galbraith Branley Solicitors in North London.
Education
- University of Westminster, LPC (Distinction) (2000-2001)
- CPE (Common Professional Exam), Commendation (1999-2000)
- University of Kent at Canterbury, Masters in European Literature (Commendation) (1996-1997)
- University of Kent at Canterbury, BA Modern English Literature since 1850 (Upper Second) (1992-1996)
Languages
Omiros is fluent in Greek
Personal Interests and Activities
Omiros is a keen footballer and played for his university and his community (Komi Kebir FC).
What Clients and Professionals Say
- “His understanding of complex issues enables him to calm any storm that may or may not be brewing.” Chambers & Partners 2025
- “Omiros is one of the best solicitors I have ever had the privilege of working with. He cares deeply for his clients and represents them with exceptional vigor.” Chambers & Partners 2025
- “Omiros is very skilled in his field.” Chambers & Partners 2025
- “Omiros is great. He’s approachable and he knows everything to do with mental health.” Chambers & Partners 2025
- “I was very impressed with the solicitor who represented Mr X, a Mr Omiros Nicholas. He was on top of his game and I was blown away.” Consultant Psychiatrist
- “Good listener. Very good at the service provided.”
- “GN Law are very effective and very efficient. Especially my lawyer Omiros Nicholas.” LS
