The High Court has rejected a challenge by a woman identified in the judgment as Maria to her detention and treatment at St. Brendan’s Hospital, finding no breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also declined to order her transfer to the Central Mental Hospital, where she had been awaiting a bed for eight months.
Maria sought a declaration that her detention under the Mental Health Act 2001 amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Her case relied on the availability of better treatment at the Central Mental Hospital and the conditions of her confinement at St. Brendan’s. St. Brendan’s was not a party to the proceedings; the respondents were the Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital and the Health Service Executive.
The judgment said a Mental Health Tribunal had authorised a proposed transfer for treatment. That authorisation did not itself require the hospital to transfer Maria, nor did it establish that her existing treatment was inadequate. The court found that, although Maria would probably be better treated at the Central Mental Hospital, its 93 beds included only eight for women, and the hospital was also responsible for other clinical and criminal justice demands.
The court considered Maria’s history and the evidence about her care. She had been involuntarily detained after a serious assault on a nurse in November 2009. The judge said her sleeping quarters had a blocked-out window and security personnel shadowed her, but found those measures understandable in light of assaults on medical staff. He also noted that her isolation had eased as her conduct improved.
The court concluded that the restrictions were not unreasonable in light of Maria’s condition and were not torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. It said her privacy was infringed, but considered the restriction necessary and justified for her care and to prevent harm. It found her detention lawful and no breach of Article 3.
The judge declined to put Maria ahead of other patients awaiting scarce beds. He said a court should intervene in waiting-list decisions only in exceptional circumstances, such as demonstrated urgent danger or arbitrary prioritisation. The judgment did not order a transfer or determine when a bed might become available.