The High Court found that the detention of an anonymised applicant at the Central Mental Hospital was not in accordance with law and directed his release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. It stayed the release order for a short time so that steps considered appropriate for his welfare could be taken, including a possible application under the Mental Health Act 2001. The judge said he would hear counsel on the precise form of order.
The case arose after the applicant was charged in 2009 with producing a flask of petrol and a cigarette lighter to intimidate a Garda on Merrion Square, Dublin. He was remanded in custody and later transferred from Cloverhill Prison to the Central Mental Hospital under section 15(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. The judgment records that a District Court judge found him unfit to be tried on 23 April 2009 and ordered inpatient care at the hospital.
The High Court held that the District Court could order inpatient care following a finding of unfitness only after considering evidence from a consultant psychiatrist obtained through the procedure set out in section 4(6). That procedure required a hospital committal for no more than 14 days for examination. The judge concluded that the District Court had not followed those requirements and had acted beyond its authority.
The written order was also internally contradictory. One part appeared to direct detention for assessment, while another committed the applicant indefinitely pending further order. The judge said the document was “bad on its face” and lacked the clarity required of an order authorising deprivation of liberty. The possibility that the District Court might later correct it could not make it a valid basis for detention in the Article 40 inquiry.
The respondent argued that nine reviews by the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board had superseded the 2009 order. The High Court rejected that argument: the Board had reviewed the applicant’s position, but had made no order under section 13 that replaced or varied the original committal order. The judge therefore found that the defective District Court order remained the basis for detention.
The judgment did not determine the original criminal charge. In a postscript, the court recorded that the Director of Public Prosecutions considered a separate judicial review application to quash the defective part of the District Court order might be unnecessary; if the applicant had recovered sufficiently to be fit for trial, the prosecution could be re-entered on due notice.