The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s decision that RGF’s detention at Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise, was lawful and dismissed his appeal under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution. The appeal concerned the interval between a tribunal revoking his renewal order and his subsequent detention under section 23 of the Mental Health Act 2001.
RGF had been detained under an admission order on 21 May 2021 and transferred to Portlaoise four days later. A renewal order was made on 10 June. On 30 June, a Mental Health Tribunal revoked that order because the documents contained errors in RGF’s name and date of birth. The tribunal decision was read to him at 2.10pm. He indicated that he wished to leave, and staff were told his intention at about 2.16pm.
At 3.20pm, while waiting for his wife to collect him, RGF was detained by his treating consultant psychiatrist. The psychiatrist examined him and certified that he had a mental disorder; a second consultant psychiatrist issued a matching certificate five minutes later. The appeal focused on the roughly 70 minutes between notification of the tribunal decision and the further detention.
The High Court had found the detention lawful and refused to order RGF’s release. On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether he was a “voluntary patient” during the disputed interval and whether he was receiving treatment. The court said the statutory definition turns on whether a person is receiving care and treatment in an approved centre without an admission or renewal order. His wish to leave did not, by itself, prevent him from falling within that definition.
RGF’s affidavit said that, during a meeting with his psychiatrist and a staff nurse, he repeatedly said he would leave. He said he was not given or did not take treatment during the period. The respondent argued that he was receiving treatment. The court concluded that the psychiatrist’s efforts to persuade him to stay and discussion of whether he would take medication outside hospital amounted to treatment, including important professional advice.
The President said the outcome would have been different if there had been no engagement with RGF after the tribunal decision and he had simply been left waiting for his wife. But the court was satisfied that, in the circumstances, he was receiving treatment as a voluntary patient in the approved centre when no admission or renewal order applied. It upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal. Kennedy J and Ní Raifeartaigh J agreed.