The High Court refused RGF’s application for habeas corpus, finding that his detention under an admission order made on 30 June 2021 had not been shown to be unlawful. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on 19 July 2021.
A Mental Health Tribunal revoked RGF’s renewal order on 30 June after finding that it contained the wrong name and date of birth. The tribunal concluded that the errors affected the substance of the order and that affirming it would cause an injustice. After the decision was read to RGF, he told his solicitor he wished to leave the Department of Psychiatry at Midland Regional Hospital in Portlaoise.
Hospital staff then used sections 23 and 24 of the Mental Health Act 2001. Section 23 allowed a short detention while a second psychiatrist examined RGF; the resulting section 24 admission order authorised detention for up to 21 days. RGF argued that he was not a voluntary patient eligible for those procedures because he wanted to leave and had received no treatment during the 70 minutes between revocation of the renewal order and his detention.
The judge accepted that RGF had received no medication during that period and that medication given at 2pm, before the tribunal revoked the order, did not count as treatment in the relevant 70 minutes. She also accepted that treatment after the section 23 and 24 procedures began could not determine his status beforehand.
However, the judge found that the definition of a voluntary patient under the Act did not depend on consent or a wish to remain in hospital. She concluded that RGF was receiving treatment because, after he told staff he planned to leave, his treating psychiatrist and a nurse met with him and tried to persuade him to stay for care intended to address his mental disorder. The short duration of that treatment did not prevent it from qualifying.
The judge also considered affidavit evidence from the treating psychiatrist about the severity of RGF’s condition and risk concerns. She noted that this evidence differed from the grounds recorded in the admission and renewal orders, but accepted the psychiatrist’s more recent, uncontroverted evidence.
The court held that the hospital was entitled to invoke sections 23 and 24. The judge noted that the order was limited to 21 days and that any renewal would require tribunal confirmation. She refused the habeas corpus order; the judgment did not determine whether any later renewal would be made.