Andrea Spyrou

Andrea is a leading solicitor within the field of forensic mental health law and specialises in the representation of clients detained in high and medium secure hospitals.  She conducts her own advocacy before First-tier Tribunal hearings but also works closely with specialist counsel on legally complex hearings lasting many days.

Andrea has acted on behalf of a number of high profile offenders assessed as high risk with complex needs and has a keen interest in hospital prison transfer patients and working with them and their clinical teams to ensure their successful rehabilitation and release. Andrea’s work in the field of mental health law was recognised by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group when in 2010 she was a finalist for the Mental Health Lawyer of the Year Award. Andrea was also listed as a Rising Star in Super Lawyers 2013.

Andrea also has experience in Court of Protection deprivation of liberty cases and is well placed to deal with the interface between the mental health law and mental capacity law and to advise on complex issues that arise.

For many years Andrea has acted as a category supervisor training trainees and paralegals supporting them to qualify as specialist solicitors and to achieve Law Society panel accreditation. Andrea also provides training on behalf of the Mental Health Lawyer’s Association in delivering the Law Society’s Mental Health Accreditation course.

Andrea has also previously sat as a Hospital Manager for the East London NHS Foundation Trust and chaired hearings.

Notable Cases:

MM v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2013] UKUT 107 (AAC). This case related to the service of an independent report.  The Upper Tribunal concluded that the First-tier Tribunal’s duty was to decide on the evidence available rather than to speculate on possible explanations why an independent report was not served.

May 2020 – Andrea successfully appealed the decision of a single First-tier Tribunal Judge to proceed with a hearing whereby the patient was unpresented. Andrea successful argued the Judge erred in law by failing to consider whether the patient had capacity to litigate in person.