The High Court ruled that J.B.’s detention in the Central Mental Hospital under two successive temporary patient orders was lawful, rejecting his challenge under Article 40.4 of the Constitution.
Mr Justice McGovern delivered the judgment on 4 May 2007. The case concerned detention under section 184 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945, which J.B.’s counsel argued had been used unlawfully over an extended period.
J.B.’s mother applied for the first order in April 2004. It was supported by a medical certificate stating that he had a mental illness, required no more than six months’ suitable treatment for recovery and was unfit for voluntary treatment. The order was extended twice, each time for six months.
A fresh section 184 application was made in October 2005, again supported by a medical certificate. That order was also extended twice. The judgment records that the final extension expired on 16 April 2007. The judge noted that section 189 of the 1945 Act limited extensions under an order to a cumulative 18 months, in addition to the initial six-month period.
For J.B., counsel argued that the repeated use of section 184 frustrated the provision’s purpose. He submitted that where an illness had become intractable, detention should instead follow a declaration that the patient was of unsound mind. The respondents argued that a new temporary order could be used where circumstances justified it, avoiding a more drastic legal route when temporary detention remained appropriate.
The judge reviewed case conferences and a psychology report describing changes in J.B.’s condition, including periods of improvement, renewed symptoms after medication was reduced, and efforts towards rehabilitation. A March 2007 independent medical examination raised concerns about the future, but the judge said he was not being asked to decide the case on that report. J.B.’s counsel also questioned whether there had been a reasonable basis to expect recovery within six months when the certificates and extensions were made. No medical practitioner’s affidavit supporting that challenge had been filed.
The court held that section 184 could be used more than once, depending on the circumstances, provided a fresh application was not a contrived way to evade the Act’s limits. It cautioned that repeated orders could eventually be unlawful if the evidence did not support using a temporary reception order.
On the evidence in this case, the judge found the second order and its extensions permissible and justified, and held detention under those orders lawful. The judgment addressed the challenged orders; it did not decide the applicant’s detention on the basis of the March 2007 examination.