The High Court declined to decide whether a woman’s involuntary admission to Connolly Hospital’s Department of Psychiatry was lawful after a Mental Health Tribunal revoked the admission order. The judge said that decision made the Article 40 inquiry moot, and she refrained from ruling on the detention’s lawfulness.
The woman had been admitted under section 14 of the Mental Health Act 2001 on 27 June 2024 for a period of up to 21 days. Her legal representative sought an inquiry under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, arguing that the forms supporting the admission did not give adequate reasons or show proper engagement with the statutory test for mental disorder. The application relied on a recent High Court decision, A.A. (Anonymised) v Clinical Director of the Ashlin Centre [2024] IEHC 408.
The admission followed treatment at Connolly Hospital for severe weight loss and swallowing and bowel difficulties. The source records a diagnosis of severe somatoform disorder. The admission order cited that disorder, associated delusional symptoms and separate paranoid delusions concerning nursing staff and medication. The woman’s solicitor also said she wished to avoid antipsychotic medication and return to Connolly Hospital for continued treatment, including assisted feeding through a gastrostomy tube.
The respondent disputed the claim that the forms were legally deficient and argued that the court should depart from the reasoning in A.A. The judge noted differences between the cases, including that an established diagnosis and general treatment information appeared in this case’s records. She did not decide whether those differences, or the respondent’s broader arguments, affected the order’s lawfulness.
A Tribunal review was scheduled for the same afternoon as the High Court hearing on 15 July. The judge was told that the Tribunal hearing had proceeded, then received confirmation that the admission order had been revoked. The respondent had argued that the High Court should still decide the legal issues because of their public importance. The judge held that this was not enough to justify deciding a moot issue, particularly where doing so would require considering whether to disagree with a recent decision of a court of equal jurisdiction.
The ruling, made by Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan on 16 July 2024, continued an existing order restricting publication of material likely to identify the woman or her condition. It did not determine whether her detention had been lawful, nor did it make a finding on the alleged deficiencies in the admission forms.