The Supreme Court dismissed the Mental Health Commission’s appeal in a case about whether a patient’s appeal against an admission order could proceed after a renewal order was made. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s order quashing the Circuit Court’s refusal to hear Ms F.’s appeal, but rejected the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the appeal provision.
Ms F. was admitted under an order made on 7 October 2015. A Mental Health Tribunal affirmed that order on 27 October, and a renewal order was made the same day. Ms F. appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Circuit Court on 28 October. When the matter came before the Circuit Court on 10 November, the admission order had passed its initial 21-day period. The Circuit Court declined to hear the appeal, treating it as moot because the admission order had been replaced by the renewal order.
The High Court refused Ms F.’s request to quash that decision. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, holding that the Circuit Court could consider whether she had been suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, even though the admission order had since been renewed.
In the Supreme Court, Justice Dunne disagreed with that reading of section 19 of the Mental Health Act 2001. She rejected the view that the section should be read as if it allowed an appeal on the grounds that a patient “is or was” suffering from a mental disorder. The court did not decide the separate question of how section 28(5) applies to a patient who has been discharged; Justice Dunne said that issue could be considered in a case where it arose.
The Supreme Court instead concluded that, under sections 15(1) and 15(2), a renewal order extends the admission order. It does not replace it or itself provide a separate basis for detention. On that basis, the admission order remained extant when the appeal reached the Circuit Court, so the appeal was not moot.
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s order quashing the Circuit Court’s 10 November 2015 order and dismissed the Mental Health Commission’s appeal. It said the Circuit Court, if hearing the appeal, would still have to consider the patient’s condition at the time of that hearing. The judgment does not itself determine whether Ms F. was suffering from a mental disorder or direct a particular outcome on that question.