The High Court has continued orders detaining T.P. at his current Brothers of Charity placement and authorising measures to provide for his care and safety. Mr Justice Mark Heslin made the orders on 15 March 2024 under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, after a review under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 could not provide a basis to continue detention there.
T.P. was admitted to wardship in 2017. The court said the 2015 Act’s Part 10 detention provisions rely on the definition of “mental disorder” in the Mental Health Act 2001. On the evidence in this case, detention at T.P.’s current placement did not meet the statutory criteria, and the Part 10 review earlier that day resulted in no order. The HSE then applied under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Two consultant psychiatrists supported continued detention and care orders. One said T.P. had lifelong autism and a learning disability, lacked capacity to make relevant decisions and needed lifelong specialist support. The second considered that he had serious and enduring mental disorders, but said he should remain at his current accommodation rather than be moved to an approved centre. The judge accepted the independent psychiatrist’s evidence and found the orders necessary and proportionate to protect T.P.’s rights and care.
Reports described episodes of verbal and physical aggression, self-injury and property damage, alongside progress since T.P. moved to a larger home in November 2023. The placement provides more personal space, including a garden and rooms where he can spend time alone. Reports also described supported community activities and a more settled recent period. The judge said the evidence supported detention and restrictions as a means of enabling his care at the placement.
The court proceeded without a meeting between T.P. and the solicitor acting for the committee. The multidisciplinary team considered that he could not understand or engage with the application and that a meeting could cause distress. The judge was satisfied that proceeding on the basis of an undertaking that the solicitor would swear an affidavit would not cause injustice.
The orders are to be reviewed regularly under the inherent jurisdiction, with a further review in about three months and liberty to apply earlier. The judge said future reporting should examine the rationale for detention, including any attempts to abscond. Any application by T.P.’s father concerning access is to move from wardship to the inherent jurisdiction. The ruling also records T.P.’s wish for contact with his mother, who lives in the United Kingdom; a gradual contact plan had been recommended by the care team.