The High Court has refused A.X.’s application for judicial review of a Mental Health Tribunal decision affirming an order for her involuntary admission to hospital. The court held that the tribunal’s written reasons adequately showed that it had applied the therapeutic ground for detention under the Mental Health Act 2001. It also concluded that the proceedings were moot after A.X. was discharged from hospital.
The tribunal reviewed the admission order on 15 May 2014 and affirmed it. Its reasons said A.X. had paranoid schizophrenia, remained thought disordered and had persecutory delusions, and lacked insight into the severity of her illness. The tribunal said she had improved after treatment but that the medication had not yet achieved its full therapeutic effect. It considered discharge premature and found that she was benefiting materially from treatment.
A.X. argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained whether she met the Act’s risk ground or therapeutic ground for detention. The original admission order had relied on the risk ground. The High Court found, however, that the tribunal’s reasons supported a decision under the therapeutic ground: impaired judgment, a likelihood of serious deterioration or inability to receive appropriate treatment without admission, and material benefit from detention and treatment.
The court said the tribunal had to decide whether A.X. was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of its review, rather than simply review the basis on which the original admission order had been made. It found no basis to conclude that the tribunal’s reasons were inadequate and rejected her challenge to that decision.
A renewal order was made on 16 May 2014, extending detention to 17 August. The court rejected A.X.’s argument that any defect in the tribunal’s review would invalidate that later order. It said a defect in an earlier stage would not taint a subsequent renewal order absent a gross abuse of power or failure to meet a fundamental requirement. The court added that even if the reasons had been deficient, that would not invalidate the later detention.
The court refused all five forms of relief sought, including orders to quash the tribunal decision or renewal order and declarations concerning the adequacy of reasons and legality of detention. It also held that the judicial review was moot: A.X. had since been discharged, and a decision on the challenge would have no practical effect on her detention. The application was refused.