A Supreme Court judge has said existing mental health legislation had to be given a purposive interpretation to resolve a dispute over the lawful detention of Clive Gooden involving Waterford Regional Hospital and St Otterans Hospital.
Mr Justice Hardiman agreed with the judgment of Mrs Justice McGuinness and with her concern that the Mental Treatment Acts contained gaps which required legislative attention.
The case involved the procedure used when a person already physically present in a hospital as a voluntary patient was to become subject to a reception order after seeking discharge contrary to medical advice. Mr Justice Hardiman noted that the 1945 legislation did not expressly deal with that situation.
To address the gap, the Supreme Court interpreted two statutory provisions differently according to their purpose. The word "received" in section 184(1) of the Mental Treatment Act 1945 was given an extended meaning so that it could apply to somebody already physically present in the institution.
By contrast, the word "convey" in section 5(1)(a) of the Mental Treatment Act 1953 was interpreted literally. Mr Justice Hardiman said that otherwise Gooden's detention would have been invalid because later requirements in that section had not been complied with.
The judge said the medical and social welfare authorities involved had acted constructively and benevolently in Gooden's interests and in the wider public interest. However, establishing the legal validity of those actions had required complex statutory interpretation.
He cautioned that the court had gone as far as it could without rewriting or supplementing legislation, something constrained by the constitutional separation of powers. The paternal character of the mental treatment legislation and the absence of a dispute over the medical evidence were important to the approach taken.
Mr Justice Hardiman also stressed that the ruling should not necessarily be treated as guidance for interpreting statutory detention powers in other contexts.