The High Court has refused to order the release of a woman involuntarily detained at St. Patrick’s University Hospital, finding that her admission order was valid and that she was being detained in accordance with law.
In a judgment delivered on 8 June 2012, Mr Justice Hogan said the court’s task under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution was to assess the legality of the detention, not the medical merits of the woman’s condition. Those medical issues were due to be considered by a Mental Health Tribunal on 13 June.
The woman, identified in the judgment as Ms Y., was detained on 24 May 2012 under the Mental Health Act 2001. A consultant psychiatrist examined her at the hospital the following day and made an admission order under section 14. The judge found that this was a valid examination under the Act, based on the psychiatrist’s interview, clinical assessment and notes.
The case also raised a question about the earlier steps leading to her admission. A general practitioner, Dr B., had recommended involuntary admission after observing Ms Y. in a car park on 20 May. He said he did not speak to her because he thought doing so might upset her and inflame the situation. The judge said it was unnecessary to decide whether those observations met the Act’s definition of an examination. Even if the recommendation had been invalid, he held, that would not invalidate a subsequent, otherwise valid section 14 admission order.
The judgment records that Ms Y. disputed the doctor’s view of her mental health and maintained that her religious beliefs were not evidence of illness. The judge did not resolve that medical dispute. He noted that the hospital psychiatrist’s assessment had been confirmed by a second doctor shortly after admission and that an independent Tribunal review was pending.
The court ordered that Dr B. be removed as a respondent because he was not detaining Ms Y. The judge instead joined him as a notice party, allowing him to be heard in response to allegations concerning his role. The hearing remained open to the public, but the court restricted publication of details that might identify Ms Y.
The ruling concerns only the Article 40.4.2 application. The judge made no order and expressed no view on other aspects of the judicial review proceedings.