The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by an anonymised man detained at St. Brendan’s Hospital, holding that a tribunal had jurisdiction to review his initial admission order even though a renewal order had been made before the tribunal hearing.
The case concerned an admission order made on 26 April 2007 under the Mental Health Act 2001. A tribunal reviewed that order on 15 May and affirmed it. The man argued that a renewal order made on 10 May meant the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the original order.
The Court held that the admission order remained in force for 21 days from the date it was made, until 17 May. The renewal order did not end the original detention period early. The Court said the Act contemplated successive periods of detention, each beginning when the preceding period expired, with each period subject to review. It noted that a separate tribunal reviewed the renewal order on 29 May.
The man’s appeal focused on procedure. He did not dispute that he had a mental disorder or that hospital detention and treatment were likely to benefit him. The Court nevertheless identified serious notification failures. The psychiatrist who made the renewal order did not mark which statutory provision authorised detention on the form notifying the man. His appointed legal representative was not told about the renewal order; he discovered it while inspecting the hospital file on the evening before the tribunal hearing.
The Court said the patient had an absolute right to be told the statutory basis for his detention, and that the omission breached the Act. A purported amendment to the order 19 days later did not remedy the failure to give notice within 24 hours. The tribunal also recorded both that the relevant statutory provisions had been followed and that any failure had caused no injustice. The Court called those findings illogical, saying any failure relied on should have been identified and its effect assessed.
Despite those criticisms, the Court concluded that the notification failures did not deprive the tribunal of power to review the initial detention. It declined to grant the relief sought and dismissed the appeal. The judgment records that the Court had no power in these proceedings to order anonymity, but requested that the man’s name and identifying details not be published.