Judgment: 2025-06-03 · Court archive

High Court approves temporary transfer of vulnerable Mayo man for specialist assessment

High Court · [2025] IEHC 353

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • DD (Respondent)
What

High Court approves temporary transfer of vulnerable Mayo man for specialist assessment

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

An independent consultant psychiatrist concluded that DD lacked capacity to decide matters concerning his accommodation and personal welfare. Ms Justice Emily Egan accepted that evidence.

By Ciaran Vale

The High Court has authorised the temporary transfer of a 22-year-old man from his family home in Co Mayo to a specialist residential placement in the south-east for an assessment of his future care needs.

The man, identified only as DD, is non-verbal, has autism, a moderate intellectual disability, communication difficulties, sensory needs and anxiety. He has largely remained at home since the Covid-19 pandemic and had received no formal supports for more than six months before the proceedings.

The HSE sought permission for a 12-to-16-week placement where a multidisciplinary team could assess his communication, behaviour, sensory needs, daily living skills and potential for greater independence. His mother strongly opposed the move. She told the court that he had recently made significant progress at home and feared that separation, particularly at a facility about three hours away, would cause him serious distress.

An independent consultant psychiatrist concluded that DD lacked capacity to decide matters concerning his accommodation and personal welfare. Ms Justice Emily Egan accepted that evidence.

The court also relied heavily on evidence from psychologist Dr Anita Hyland, who considered a structured assessment in a neutral, standalone unit necessary and said its longer-term benefits outweighed the disruption of moving. Professionals agreed that no less restrictive means was presently available.

The judge invoked the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, a protective power used exceptionally where an adult lacks capacity and existing legislation does not adequately address the situation. She found that the temporary restriction on DD's liberty was proportionate to the need to protect his health and well-being.

The order was initially deferred for two weeks so the family and professionals could develop a transition plan. The court also required regular reviews.

Importantly, the ruling does not decide where DD will live after the assessment. His mother and the other parties must be given another full opportunity to be heard before any longer-term decision is made.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review