The Court of Appeal has found that the Mental Health Tribunal lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that Gardaí had lawfully detained an anonymised applicant under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001.
The appeal concerned the Tribunal’s decision of 5 June 2020 to affirm an involuntary admission order made on 18 May 2020 for the applicant’s admission to Tallaght University Hospital. The applicant had challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the High Court, which refused the requested judicial review relief. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal.
Garda Markham’s Form 3 said she was “concerned for mental health” and believed the applicant was mentally unwell and needed treatment. It recorded that he was in public wearing a towel around his waist, holding a lantern and talking about wanting to be deported. The Tribunal concluded those entries conveyed an immediate and serious risk of harm. It also referred to medical examinations after the arrest.
The Court of Appeal said the Tribunal could, in principle, consider a contemporaneous Form 3 and relevant medical evidence. But it held that the form did not establish that Garda Markham had actually formed the opinion required by section 12: that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant had a mental disorder and, because of it, presented a serious likelihood of causing immediate and serious harm to himself or another person.
The judgment said the Tribunal had inferred the required opinion from the form’s contents, without evidence of what opinion the Garda had held. That inference was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court also rejected a proposed heightened standard of proof, holding that the ordinary civil standard, the balance of probabilities, applied.
The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal had acted without any or sufficient evidence to rationally find compliance with section 12, and that its decision was void. As the applicant had long since been at liberty, the court said it would hear counsel on the relief to be granted. It also said the applicant was entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court, subject to either party requesting an oral hearing on costs within 14 days.