The High Court held that a mental health detention renewal order must state a definite period. It ruled that an order saying only “not exceeding 12 months” did not meet the requirements of section 15 of the Mental Health Act 2001 and provided no legal basis for the applicant’s detention.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McMahon on 31 October 2008, arose from judicial review proceedings concerning a renewal order made on 21 May 2008. The applicant, identified as S. M., had been detained at St Patrick’s Hospital in Dublin. Her treating consultant psychiatrist, Dr Corry, had made the order in terms that it would not exceed 12 months.
The court considered whether those words fixed the detention period at 12 months or allowed the psychiatrist to choose a shorter period without specifying it. Justice McMahon concluded that section 15 requires a definite period, which may be as short as one day or as long as one year. An upper limit alone leaves the patient uncertain about how long the order applies and prevents the statutory scheme from providing timely independent review.
The judgment recounted that the applicant’s medical history and need for ongoing medication and supervision were not in dispute. Her treating psychiatrist considered supervised accommodation preferable if it could be secured, but none had become available. A more recent opinion from another consultant, Dr Mohan, cast doubt on whether that accommodation was suitable. The court said it was not criticising Dr Corry’s treatment; it attributed the error to the wording of the Mental Health Commission’s form.
Although the court found the order invalid, it did not direct the applicant’s immediate release. Justice McMahon said immediate release would not serve her interests or those of people she might encounter. He made a release order but stayed it for four weeks, giving the relevant parties time to comply with the legislation and determine the appropriate order. The judgment said the ruling did not prevent a psychiatrist from making a 12-month order where appropriate, provided the specific period was stated.
The court noted at the end of the judgment that media reports indicated legislation had been passed by the Oireachtas the previous day in anticipation of its decision. It said the ruling concerned the law as it stood before that amendment and invited counsel to address the development later.