The High Court has refused B’s application to overturn a Mental Health Tribunal decision affirming an order for involuntary admission to Tallaght University Hospital in May 2020.
B challenged the tribunal’s decision of 5 June 2020, arguing that the Garda who took B into custody had not recorded evidence of a serious likelihood that B would cause immediate and serious harm to B or another person, as required to use section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001. The challenge concerned the tribunal’s interpretation of that requirement; B accepted that a mental disorder existed and did not dispute the statutory time limits.
Garda Elaine Markham’s application form said she was concerned about B’s mental health and believed B was mentally unwell and in need of treatment. It described B in public wearing a towel around the waist, carrying a lantern and talking about wanting to be deported. A GP and then a consultant psychiatrist recommended admission on therapeutic grounds under a separate provision of the Act.
At the tribunal review, B’s solicitor objected that the form did not establish the risk needed for the Garda’s use of section 12. The tribunal rejected the objection and affirmed the admission order, finding that the form’s wording conveyed an immediate and serious risk. B sought judicial review, alleging that the tribunal had applied the wrong test and reached an irrational conclusion.
Justice Creedon said the tribunal had a statutory duty to check whether section 12 had been complied with, or whether any failure affected the substance of the order or caused injustice. She found that the tribunal did not rely on that latter, curative provision: it concluded that section 12 had been met.
The judge held that the Act required the civil standard of proof, with care taken to ensure evidence was clear and convincing. She concluded that the information on the Garda’s form alone provided sufficient objective and reasonable grounds for the tribunal to find that the Garda had a reasonable belief that the statutory risk threshold was met. The court did not consider it necessary to rely on the later medical examinations to reach that conclusion.
The court therefore found that the tribunal had acted lawfully and within its jurisdiction and refused the relief sought. B had already been discharged in June 2020 after a renewal order was revoked. The court left the precise court order and costs to be agreed between the parties, with written submissions due within 21 days if they could not agree.