The High Court has rejected an application challenging the lawfulness of a man’s detention at Saint Brendan’s Hospital, ruling that a renewal order could be made before the original admission order had been reviewed.
The applicant sought an inquiry under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. His counsel argued that the renewal order, made on 10 May 2007, was invalid because the tribunal had not yet reviewed the admission order made on 26 April. He also argued that the renewal order could deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction or leave the applicant detained even if the original order were revoked.
The court heard that the applicant’s sister applied on 25 April for a recommendation that he be admitted as an involuntary patient. A recommendation was made that day, and an admission order followed on 26 April after a consultant psychiatrist examined him. A Mental Health Tribunal reviewed that order on 15 May and affirmed it. The separate review of the renewal order remained outstanding, and had to be completed by 31 May.
The judge held that the renewal order did not begin immediately when made. It took effect only when the original admission order’s 21-day period expired, and only if a valid admission order remained in place after review. If the tribunal had revoked the admission order before then, the applicant would have had to be discharged and the renewal order would have lapsed. The applicant retained the right to review of both orders.
The applicant’s notice concerning the renewal order did not have either box ticked to show whether detention was under an admission order or a renewal order. The judge described this as an oversight that should not occur, but held that it did not make the detention unlawful and could be corrected.
The court concluded that the applicant was detained in accordance with law. The judgment records no order for release; the separate tribunal review of the renewal order was still pending.