The High Court has barred M.P. from bringing or relitigating claims against the named defendants, their servants or agents, over her treatment between 3 November 2008 and 13 March 2009. It also struck out her application for leave to bring proceedings over an alleged detention in 2010, but did not impose a broader restriction on claims about that period.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2010, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said M.P.’s application under section 73 of the Mental Health Act 2001 included only an oblique reference to a possible detention between July and September 2010. She had not specified who was involved, where she was detained or why. The judge said there was no evidence before him about the circumstances of that detention and it would not be fair or just to make a radical order concerning it.
M.P. said she did not intend to reopen the earlier case, but wanted to challenge a second involuntary detention. Her affidavit also repeated allegations of surveillance, intelligence agency involvement and threatening messages. The judgment records that these allegations had been raised in the earlier application and were not supported by corroborative evidence. They remain allegations, not findings that the events occurred.
The earlier proceedings concerned M.P.’s detention at Cavan General Hospital’s psychiatric unit from 3 February to 13 March 2009. In an April 2010 judgment, the court refused leave to sue and found the intended proceedings frivolous and vexatious. It found no evidence that the doctors had acted in bad faith or without reasonable care, and no evidence of a prima facie breach of duty by gardaí involved in her detention.
The judge said the new affidavit largely retraced those earlier matters. He concluded that M.P. had sought to revive litigation already held to be frivolous and vexatious and had abused the court process through repeated proceedings and failures to follow court directions. He nevertheless said any restriction on access to the courts had to be proportionate.
The order bars proceedings against the named defendants and Dr Vincent Russell concerning treatment from 3 November 2008 to 13 March 2009. The judgment identifies the defendants as the Attorney General, the Health Service Executive and Sheila Casey. It warns that further attempts to relitigate the same issues could lead to broader restrictions, while noting that any proceedings about matters not properly examined in this application would need to meet section 73’s requirements.