The High Court has found that a renewal order underpinning the detention of an anonymised psychiatric patient was invalid because it omitted the date on which the detention would end. The court directed the patient’s release under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, but ordered that release be delayed and left its terms for a later ruling after hearing the parties.
The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson on 27 February 2024, following a hearing the previous day. Hyland J had directed an Article 40.4 inquiry on 22 February into the grounds for detention. An order prohibiting publication of information likely to identify the applicant and their condition remained in force.
The patient had been admitted to an approved centre on 24 January under an admission order. The judgment said no issue arose about that order’s validity. Dr E examined the patient on 9 February and completed most of a Form 7 to renew the detention, but left blank Part 10, which records the renewal’s expiry date. The form was rejected by the Mental Health Commission’s online portal. Dr E inserted an end date on 12 February and resubmitted it successfully, while retaining the original date and without resigning the form. The patient had been notified on 9 February using a separate form that stated an end date of 9 May.
Justice Jackson rejected the respondents’ arguments that the missing date could be supplied by reading the renewal order together with the patient notification form, or that the later insertion cured the omission. She said the documents conflicted because only one included an end date, requiring the court to assume which was correct. She also noted that the later alteration was not identified on the face of the order and was submitted outside the statutory 24-hour notification period.
The judge said she did not need to decide whether a renewal order could ever be amended. She held that this omission was serious and fundamental, rather than a trivial clerical slip, and found the renewal order made on 9 February invalid. She considered the notification issue separately: the patient notification form contained the required information, and any notification defect would not affect the substance of the order or cause an injustice.
A report from Dr E dated 24 February said continued detention was required, that no less restrictive option would ensure the necessary treatment, and that the patient continued to have a mental disorder. The judgment said that report was not contradicted. The respondents submitted that, if the application succeeded, release should be delayed under a Supreme Court decision. The judge ordered delayed release and said she would rule on its terms after hearing further submissions.