The High Court has ruled that a man’s detention at St John of God’s Hospital remained lawful under transitional provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001, rejecting his challenge to the timing of tribunal reviews.
In a judgment delivered on 22 May 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart found that the relevant statutory requirements had been met. The court was considering an application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution seeking the applicant’s release on the basis that his detention had allegedly been unlawful since 17 April 2007.
The applicant, identified as R.W., had been detained at the hospital since 25 October 2005 under an order made under the Mental Treatment Act 1945. His detention was extended twice under that legislation. Part II of the 2001 Act came into operation on 1 November 2006, and section 72 provided transitional arrangements for people already detained under the earlier law.
The hospital reported the detention to the Mental Health Tribunal. The Tribunal reviewed and affirmed it on 27 March 2007, before the existing period was due to expire on 25 April. A renewal order under the 2001 Act was made on 23 April and reviewed by the Tribunal on 10 May.
Counsel for R.W. argued that the Tribunal’s 27 March decision should have been reviewed again within 21 days. Because that did not happen by 17 April, she submitted, the detention became unlawful and the later review could not remedy the gap. The hospital and representatives of the Mental Health Tribunal and Mental Health Commission argued that the transitional requirements had been followed.
Justice Peart held that section 72 kept the detention authorised until the expiry of the period allowed under the earlier 1945 Act. The requirement that the Tribunal review the detention “as if” it had been authorised by a renewal order meant that the Tribunal had to provide the safeguards and procedures applicable to such a review; it did not turn the 27 March decision into a new renewal order subject to a separate 21-day deadline.
The judge concluded that the applicant’s detention was in accordance with law and refused the release application. The Health Service Executive had been struck out as a respondent at the start of the hearing, after it stated that it provided funding but had no role in the hospital’s management or clinical and administrative decisions.