The High Court has refused an application seeking an inquiry into the detention of A.C. at St. Finbarr’s Hospital, finding that her placement there was lawful under a wardship order made in July 2018.
In a judgment delivered on 3 August 2018, Ms Justice Faherty said the basis for A.C.’s detention was an order of the President of the High Court dated 23 July 2018. That order directed that she remain an in-patient at St. Finbarr’s pending further order of the court.
The application was brought by A.C.’s son, P.C., under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The court had directed an inquiry on 31 July and ordered the respondents to certify the basis of her detention. The judgment records that the hospital’s general manager certified the 23 July order as that basis.
The judge distinguished the case from an earlier Court of Appeal ruling about Cork University Hospital. That ruling found that A.C. had been unlawfully prevented from leaving that hospital on 23 June 2016. Faherty J. said the appeal concerned A.C.’s circumstances on that date and did not determine the validity of the later wardship proceedings or her placement at St. Finbarr’s.
A.C. was taken into wardship by an order dated 19 August 2016. Faherty J. said that order had not been appealed or set aside. P.C. argued that the wardship process was unlawful and that the July 2018 detention certificate was defective. He also contended that his mother remained unlawfully detained. The respondents submitted that the 23 July 2018 order was a valid basis for her placement.
The judgment notes that P.C.’s separate plenary proceedings, which he used to challenge aspects of the wardship process, were stayed. He had appealed the order staying those proceedings; that appeal was listed for hearing in June 2019. The Article 40 inquiry did not decide the merits of that challenge.
Faherty J. also noted evidence that A.C.’s placement was periodically reviewed by a High Court-appointed Medical Visitor, who had found her appropriately cared for. The July order allowed P.C. and his sister, V.C., to file replying affidavits and apply to discharge or vary the order on four clear days’ notice.
The judge concluded that A.C. was lawfully detained under the 23 July order, made under section 9(1) of the Courts of Justice Act 1961, and refused the Article 40 relief. The judgment records that the order also restricted family visits and authorised clinically appropriate care and treatment, including medication.