The High Court has refused an application seeking the release from hospital of a 96-year-old woman who is a ward of court, finding that her continued hospitalisation was authorised by a valid court order.
The application was brought by her son under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The woman, identified in the judgment only as A.C., was living at St. Finbarr’s Hospital in Cork. A reporting restriction prohibits publication of material likely to identify her.
The inquiry concerned the lawfulness of her detention under an order made by the President of the High Court on 4 June 2019. The judge said the application did not concern the original 2016 detention or wardship order. The son argued, among other things, that the President lacked jurisdiction to review the wardship orders, that there had been a gap in the orders, and that the detention certificate was invalid because it had not been signed by the Minister for Health.
The court rejected those arguments. It found that the President had continued the orders for cases on the wardship list overnight in October 2018, including the order concerning A.C. It also held that, even if there had been a brief gap, that would not invalidate the later June 2019 order. The judge concluded that the President had jurisdiction to review the woman’s continued hospitalisation.
The court found no evidence of a fundamental denial of justice or other fundamental flaw in the process leading to the June order. The son’s complaint that he and his siblings lacked access to relevant care documents fell short of the threshold for an Article 40 inquiry, the judge said. The court also accepted a detention certificate signed by an HSE social care official, which identified the June order as the legal basis for detention.
Medical evidence put before the wardship court included a consultant geriatrician’s opinion that the woman required specialist nursing and medical care that could not be provided at home. The judgment also records that she had expressed a wish to go home. Those matters were part of the wardship evidence; the Article 40 inquiry addressed whether the order authorising her detention was lawful.
The judge refused the application. She also said the Registrar of the Wards of Court should not have been named as a respondent, as the Registrar’s role was administrative and involved no decision about the woman. The ruling did not release the woman from hospital; her continued hospitalisation remained authorised by the June 2019 order.