The High Court ruled that a man detained at an approved psychiatric centre was lawfully detained when a renewal order was made on 28 June 2021. It held that a tribunal’s 14-day extension of the period for reviewing his admission order ran from the end of the initial 21-day period, and declared that he was not unlawfully detained at any time up to and including the renewal order date.
The Article 40 inquiry, heard on 9 July 2021, concerned detention after a tribunal affirmed the admission order on 23 June. The admission order had been made on 26 May. On 11 June, the tribunal extended by 14 days the time available for its review, after a conflict arose between the applicant’s account and other evidence and it decided further witnesses were needed.
The applicant argued that the extension began on 11 June and expired on 25 June, making the renewal order late. Alternatively, he argued that the extension ceased to support detention once the tribunal reached its decision on 23 June, so a renewal order should have been made before then. He also relied on an earlier High Court decision, J.B. v. The Director of the Central Mental Hospital & Anor.
The respondent argued that the extension ran from the end of the original 21 days, keeping the admission order in force during the extension. The court agreed. It departed from the earlier J.B. decision, saying it was unclear whether the same arguments had been considered and that the reasoning and interpretation in that judgment were not supported by the statutory wording.
The court held that the admission order remained in force for 14 days after the initial period ended on 15 June. It rejected the argument that the order ceased to support detention as soon as the tribunal affirmed it on 23 June. The court said the Act provided for the admission order to continue during the extension, and noted that a treating psychiatrist who concluded inpatient treatment was no longer needed would have to discharge the patient.
A renewal order made on 28 June extended detention for a further three months, to 27 September 2021. A tribunal revoked that renewal order on 12 July; the applicant’s representative informed the court of the revocation the following day. The High Court nevertheless proceeded to give judgment on the legality of detention up to and including 28 June.
The court proposed an order declaring that the applicant had not been unlawfully detained through 28 June and prohibiting publication of material tending to identify either the applicant or respondent. It had yet to hear the parties on the final terms of the order, costs and any other matters.