The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by AM against a High Court order making him a ward of court and directing his detention at the Central Mental Hospital (CMH). The Court held that, on the evidence and urgent circumstances before the High Court, the order was necessary and appropriate to protect AM’s constitutional rights and those of others.
The HSE applied to the High Court on 7 November 2016, shortly before AM’s prison sentence was due to expire. The HSE said he met the criteria for involuntary detention under the Mental Health Act 2001 but that it could not use the Act’s procedures because no other approved centre would accept him, even temporarily, for assessment. The Supreme Court noted that evidence about those efforts came from psychiatrists repeating what HSE officials had told them; there was no direct evidence from the officials.
Medical evidence before the High Court described continuing symptoms of schizophrenia, limited insight, and risks to AM and others if he were released. The Supreme Court said the evidence supported both the statutory mental disorder criteria and the wardship criteria. It also noted that AM’s family did not dispute the doctors’ view of his condition or treatment, and that no specific denial of a treatment right was alleged.
The appeal raised whether a person who meets the Mental Health Act criteria could instead be detained through wardship. The Court said the two legal regimes are intended to operate separately: the Mental Health Act’s procedures cannot be combined with wardship procedures. But the legislation had not removed the High Court’s wardship power to order detention where necessary and appropriate. The Court also said inherent jurisdiction remains available only exceptionally, as a backstop where fundamental constitutional rights are at stake and statute provides no remedy.
The Supreme Court accepted that the 2001 Act contains defined safeguards, while requiring that wardship detention also be subject to protections that vindicate constitutional and Convention rights. It referred to regular court reviews, representation for the ward, psychiatric reports, and the ability to seek urgent reconsideration. The judgment emphasized that detention must be proportionate, based on evidence of unsound mind, and subject to speedy, effective periodic review.
The Court concluded that the High Court had faced an immediate situation with no established practical alternative on the evidence then available. It found no error in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not make the Mental Health Act procedures applicable to AM’s wardship order.