The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal over how a 14-day extension by a mental health tribunal affects the period of detention under the Mental Health Act 2001. It held that the extension added 14 days to the initial 21-day period, making 35 days from the admission order, and that a renewal order made within that period was lawful.
The appellant, identified in the judgment only as B, had been admitted to an approved centre under an admission order made on 26 May 2021. The judgment says the admission followed events at the family home after gardaí were called and formed the belief that B posed a risk to his mother. The lawfulness of the steps leading to the admission order was not in dispute.
A mental health tribunal began reviewing the order on 11 June. Because of conflicting evidence and the need to hear from gardaí, it extended by 14 days the time allowed to decide whether to affirm or revoke the order, and adjourned the hearing. On 23 June, after hearing evidence and submissions, it affirmed the order. Five days later, on 28 June, a consultant psychiatrist made a renewal order extending detention to 27 September.
B argued that the lawful detention period had expired before the renewal order was made. He said the 14 days should run from the tribunal’s extension decision, or that the extension should end when the tribunal decided the review. The respondent argued that the extension ran from the end of the initial 21-day period.
The High Court rejected B’s interpretation and found that the renewal order was made while detention remained lawful. The Court of Appeal agreed. It held that the 14 days extended the period for the tribunal’s decision under section 18(2), which is 21 days from the admission order. In this case, the resulting 35-day period ran from 26 May and ended on or about 30 June, so the 28 June renewal order was made in time.
The court also explained that an extension does not prevent earlier discharge. If a tribunal revokes an order, detention must end when it makes that decision. The judgment further held that the treating psychiatrist’s statutory duty to discharge a patient who is no longer suffering from a mental disorder continues during an extended period.
The court proceeded with the appeal despite the appellant having been released, citing the respondent’s consent to the High Court delivering judgment after the matter had become moot and the general importance of the statutory interpretation issue. It dismissed the appeal and said the earlier High Court decision in J.B. should not be followed insofar as it conflicted with this interpretation.