The High Court has refused Adrian Sweetman leave to bring a judicial review challenge to his brief detention as an involuntary patient at St. Michael’s Psychiatric Unit in September 2019. Mr Justice Barr found no arguable case that the doctor who made the detention order had acted unlawfully. The court also refused his requests for other relief, while leaving costs and the terms of the final order for further written submissions.
Mr Sweetman had been admitted voluntarily on 26 September 2019. At about 3am the following day, a doctor detained him under section 23 of the Mental Health Act 2001 after he indicated that he wanted to leave. He was examined later that morning by a consultant psychiatrist, who concluded that he did not need to remain detained. He was discharged at about 11am.
In his application, Mr Sweetman said he had wanted a cigarette and tea and toast during the night. He said staff refused his requests and told him he could not leave because the unit was secure. He described becoming distressed, being restrained by staff and having his phone taken. He argued that he had not been aggressive or threatening and that the detention order lacked a reasonable basis. He also said the doctor had wrongly relied on his 2012 admission.
The respondents submitted that the doctor had assessed him, reviewed the relevant 2019 medical records and spoken with the consultant on call before making the order. Those records referred to low mood, suicidal thoughts and agitation. The respondents argued that section 23 required the doctor to hold an opinion that the patient had a mental disorder, while section 24 required a later examining consultant to be satisfied that continued detention was warranted.
The judge applied the threshold for leave to seek judicial review: whether the applicant had shown an arguable case, rather than whether he was likely to win at a full hearing. He said the doctor had interviewed Mr Sweetman privately, observed agitated behaviour, reviewed the 2019 admission records and consulted the on-call consultant. The judge found no evidence that the doctor relied on records from 2012.
The judge said the later consultant’s decision to discharge Mr Sweetman did not establish that the earlier order was unlawful, because the statutory tests differed. He also considered it reasonable for the doctor to take account of the late-night timing, the recorded suicidal ideation and the hospital’s proximity to the River Lee.
The court refused leave to seek an order quashing the detention decision. It also refused a requested order intended to prevent future unlawful conduct and refused claims for damages, finding they did not arise in the judicial review proceedings. No costs order was made at that stage. The parties were given two weeks to submit written observations on the final order, costs and any other arising matters.