The High Court declined an application to challenge R.L.’s detention under the Mental Health Act 2001, finding that a valid admission order supported the detention and that no fundamental failure in due process had been shown.
Mr Justice Feeney delivered the judgment on 17 January 2008 in an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. R.L. argued that the removal to St. Brendan’s Hospital breached section 13 of the 2001 Act and that those alleged breaches invalidated the admission order made on 22 December 2007.
The complaints included alleged failures concerning evidence that removal could not be arranged otherwise, the manner of the registered medical practitioner’s request, and the absence of approved-centre staff during the removal. The judgment also addressed a complaint about Dr Leader’s examination of R.L.
The court held that section 13 concerns how a person is brought to and received at an approved centre, while section 14 governs the examination and admission decision that can result in detention. It said an admission order is separate from the means by which a person arrived. The court was satisfied that the 22 December order was properly made and that a renewal order had since been made, whose validity was not challenged.
The judge expressly made no finding on whether section 13 had been breached. He said any such complaint should be pursued through judicial review and that alleged removal defects did not invalidate the admission order in this inquiry. The court concluded that no breach of a fundamental requirement had made the detention unlawful.
On the examination complaint, the judgment recounted Dr Leader’s evidence that she interviewed R.L. for 35 minutes without an interpreter, considered R.L.’s English sufficient for the assessment, reviewed medical records and interviewed the treating consultant. Dr Leader said she considered R.L. at risk of stopping medication and relapsing if discharged. The court found no proper basis to criticise her examination or opinion.
The application for relief under Article 40.4 was declined. The ruling addressed the lawfulness of detention; it did not determine whether the alleged section 13 removal breaches occurred.