The High Court has held that an alleged unlawful detention by gardaí did not invalidate the later detention of an anonymised woman under the Mental Health Act 2001 at St Patrick’s Hospital.
The applicant, identified as C.C., challenged her detention under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. For the purpose of deciding the legal issue, Mr Justice McMahon assumed that gardaí had acted unlawfully when they initially detained her and brought her to the hospital on 9 December 2008.
The hospital had not requested Garda assistance and was unaware of any alleged irregularity. Before her arrival, the applicant’s husband had made an application for involuntary admission and her GP had made the required medical recommendation.
Later on 9 December, a consultant psychiatrist examined her and made an admission order after concluding that she was suffering from a mental disorder requiring inpatient treatment. An independent psychiatrist subsequently examined her. A Mental Health Tribunal affirmed the admission order on 19 December, and a renewal order was also made.
The applicant argued that the alleged Garda illegality contaminated everything which followed. The High Court rejected that argument.
McMahon J held that an admission order under section 14 of the Mental Health Act is a separate legal decision. Its validity depended on the statutory examination and clinical findings supporting it, rather than on an unrelated irregularity in how the patient had earlier arrived at the hospital.
The court also rejected the contention that the Mental Health Tribunal should itself have ordered her release when the Garda issue was raised. The Tribunal, as a statutory body, had only the powers given to it by the Act and no such power had been conferred.
The judgment did not rule out a separate claim against gardaí arising from the initial detention. It made no finding on the merits of any such case.
By the time the judgment was finalised, a reconvened Mental Health Tribunal had revoked its earlier order and the applicant was no longer detained, so no release order was required from the High Court.