The High Court has refused C leave to begin proceedings against Dr Casey over C’s involuntary admission to a mental health unit in 2013, finding that the proposed case had no reasonable chance of success on the evidence before it.
In a judgment delivered on 17 May 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the allegations against Dr Casey remained unproven. C alleged that, while C was in Garda custody on 23 April 2013, a Garda superintendent induced the doctor to complete a form recommending involuntary admission. C also alleged wrongdoing by individual Garda members and the Garda Ombudsman.
The application was for leave under section 73 of the Mental Health Act 2001. The judge said Dr Casey’s affidavit evidence indicated that the doctor had acted bona fide and reasonably, while C’s case against the doctor relied on assertion and had no independent supporting evidence. The court also noted that no expert opinion supporting a professional negligence claim was before it.
The judgment records that C was examined by a consultant psychiatrist on the morning of admission. C submitted that this examination was negligent. The court said an admission and discharge summary exhibited in Dr Casey’s evidence recorded paranoid persecutory delusions, high-risk nursing care and a diagnosis of psychosis. The contents of that document were uncontroverted, the judge said.
C had previously started Circuit Court proceedings in 2014 without first obtaining leave. The claim against Dr Casey was dismissed in 2017, with costs ordered against C; claims against 12 other defendants remained in being. The High Court had also revoked earlier leave after C did not bring a fresh application when given an opportunity to do so.
The judge acknowledged the importance of court access and the seriousness of a case involving deprivation of liberty. He also cited the five-year interval since the events and the absence of an expert report or independent evidence. Concluding that the proposed proceedings against Dr Casey were legally frivolous, he declined to grant leave. The related proceedings against Garda members and the Garda Ombudsman remain in being, and C is free to pursue them.
After the initial hearing, C supplied further material and a fresh hearing was held. Dr Casey’s counsel left it to the court’s discretion whether to consider that material, objecting to one document. The court considered the additional material except for the document objected to.