The High Court refused an application to release a man detained under the Mental Health Act 2001, finding that his detention was lawful when the application was heard.
The anonymised applicant, identified in the judgment as D., had been admitted voluntarily to an approved centre in November 2008. He was detained as an involuntary patient from 2 December. Mental health tribunals affirmed the detention and subsequent renewal orders, most recently on 8 April 2009, after reviewing a renewal order made on 20 March.
The application challenged that latest renewal on two grounds. The applicant’s representative argued that Dr John Dennehy was not entitled to make the order because Dr Rosemary Shinkin was the responsible consultant psychiatrist. It was also argued that an independent psychiatrist’s report was defective because Dr Louis O’Carroll had not interviewed the responsible consultant, as required by section 17 of the Act.
Dr Dennehy said he was covering Dr Shinkin’s work while she was ill under a reciprocal arrangement. He said he had assessed and examined the applicant before signing the order and was familiar with his care. The applicant’s solicitor gave a different account of Dr Shinkin’s evidence at the tribunal, saying she had stated that Dr Dennehy was not covering her patient at the time.
Dr O’Carroll acknowledged that he had not interviewed Dr Shinkin or another doctor. He said he had tried to contact Dr Shinkin, learned she was ill, and was told by the Mental Health Commission that speaking to a junior doctor would not suffice. He said he entered a date in the report form by mistake. The tribunal chairperson said the tribunal knew the interview had not taken place and considered the report despite that omission.
The High Court found, on the evidence before it, that Dr Dennehy was responsible for the applicant’s care when he made the renewal order, and that section 15 had not been breached. It also held that the missed interview did not make the report invalid for the tribunal’s purposes. The judge stressed that the Act’s safeguards are important, and said an adjournment could have been appropriate if there had been doubt about whether the applicant had a mental disorder. In this case, the court said there was no such doubt.
The court had already refused the application at the hearing and, in its written judgment, gave its reasons. It concluded that the applicant’s detention was in accordance with law on the date of the application. The judgment does not state that the court ordered the applicant’s release.