The High Court ruled that the Circuit Court had no power to shorten the duration of a mental health renewal order. It quashed that part of the Circuit Court decision and confirmed the order remained in force until 4 June 2014.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon on 12 May 2014, arose from a point-of-law appeal by the Mental Health Tribunal under section 19 of the Mental Health Act 2001. The respondent was identified in the judgment as S.P.; the Health Service Executive was a notice party.
S.P. had been involuntarily admitted under an order made on 15 August 2013. A second renewal order, made by a consultant psychiatrist on 14 December 2013 for a maximum six-month period, was due to expire on 4 June 2014. The Tribunal reviewed and affirmed that renewal order. S.P. appealed to the Circuit Court.
At the Circuit Court hearing on 11 March 2014, a substitute responsible consultant psychiatrist gave evidence that S.P. continued to meet the statutory definition of mental disorder and that a further four to six weeks of treatment was needed. The psychiatrist said S.P. would then be discharged back into the community. Judge Doyle affirmed the renewal order but shortened its duration to six weeks from the hearing, ending it on 28 April 2014.
The Tribunal appealed, arguing that section 19 allowed the Circuit Court only to affirm or revoke a renewal order, not vary its duration. S.P. raised a preliminary objection, submitting that the Tribunal had no right to appeal to the High Court. Justice O’Hanlon rejected that objection, finding that section 19(16) allowed any party to appeal on a point of law.
On the substantive issue, the High Court held that section 19(4) gave the Circuit Court no jurisdiction to vary the renewal order. The section provided for affirming or revoking the order, and the power to make renewal orders belonged to the responsible consultant psychiatrist. The High Court therefore quashed Judge Doyle’s decision only insofar as it shortened the order. It confirmed her decision to affirm the renewal order and directed that it remain in force until 4 June 2014. No order was made as to costs.
The judgment also records that, at a mention on 28 April 2014, the notice party said S.P. was still suffering from a mental disorder but was anticipated to no longer do so by 2 May, with a discharge plan in place. This was recorded as an indication to the court, not as a finding in the appeal’s final order.