The High Court ordered the immediate release of an anonymised patient detained at Connolly Hospital after finding that errors in a renewal order meant it did not clearly establish the legal basis for her detention.
In a judgment delivered on 10 February 2014, Mr Justice Hogan considered an application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The applicant, identified in the judgment as P.D. and Ms. D., was 27 and had been admitted involuntarily to the hospital’s Department of Psychiatry on 26 October 2013. A renewal order followed on 13 November, and a Mental Health Tribunal affirmed the admission and renewal orders on 27 November.
A consultant psychiatrist made a further renewal order on 13 January 2014. The form cited section 15(2) of the Mental Health Act 2001 instead of section 15(3), and gave an expiry date in April 2013 rather than 2014. The judgment records that the consultant promptly noted the errors. At a later Tribunal hearing, she clarified that she had intended to refer to 14 April 2014.
The Tribunal affirmed the detention, viewing the mistakes as technical defects that did not affect the substance of the order or cause injustice. Mr Justice Hogan disagreed. He said the Tribunal’s decision reviewed the renewal order but did not replace it; the renewal order itself remained the legal basis for detention. He also found that the statutory provision allowing the Tribunal in certain circumstances to overlook procedural non-compliance did not resolve whether this order was valid on its face.
Applying the Supreme Court’s approach to defective detention documents, the judge held that the incorrect statutory subsection and expiry date meant the order did not clearly state the legal basis or duration of detention. He concluded that the respondent had not established lawful detention as required by Article 40.4.2.
The respondent did not argue that release should be delayed. The judge therefore directed the applicant’s immediate release. He did not consider whether release could have been delayed under a separate Supreme Court decision, as that issue was not argued.