The High Court found that Ireland’s Mental Health Act 2001 was incompatible with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights insofar as it allowed a person with a mental disorder to be detained for up to 12 months without a way to initiate a review during that period, apart from an appeal at its outset.
Mr Justice Binchy said a person detained for a lengthy or indefinite period on mental health grounds is entitled to take proceedings at reasonable intervals to challenge the lawfulness of detention. He concluded that the Act’s safeguards, judicial review and an application under Article 40 of the Constitution did not provide an equivalent means of reviewing whether a person’s mental disorder persisted.
The case was brought by an anonymised applicant detained at St Loman’s Hospital. He had been held there since May 2015 and was subject to a renewal order made on 13 September 2016, affirmed by a Mental Health Tribunal on 28 September. The Tribunal affirmed detention under the Act’s treatment criterion. The order authorised detention until 12 September 2017.
The applicant argued that he had recovered from the psychotic episode that led to his admission and should receive 24-hour support in the community. His continued detention in an acute psychiatric ward, he said, was harming his wellbeing, while no review could be initiated during the 12-month order. The respondents disputed his claims and maintained that detention remained necessary until suitable supervised accommodation was ready.
The judgment records that funding for a community placement had been reinstated and arrangements were under way, but the applicant would remain detained while approvals and staffing were put in place. The judge noted that the applicant had not disputed that he met the statutory definition of mental disorder or challenged the procedures used to make the detention orders. He rejected the constitutional challenge because the applicant could not show that the alleged defects adversely affected his interests in the circumstances of this case.
The court nevertheless concluded that the absence of an opportunity to seek review during a 12-month order was incompatible with Article 5(4). It did not grant the requested declaration under section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, finding that relief inappropriate in light of the community-care arrangements being made. Instead, it said section 5 allowed the court to issue a declaration of incompatibility on its own motion and proposed to do so. The judge said he would discuss the declaration’s wording with counsel; the judgment does not set out its final form.