The High Court has ruled that it could not carry out a statutory review of an anonymised ward’s detention because a required report from an independent consultant psychiatrist was missing. Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the court’s inherent jurisdiction could be invoked because the statute did not provide a way around that requirement.
The ex tempore ruling, delivered on 13 June 2024, concerns M.D., a man in his twenties who was admitted to wardship in November 2017. The judgment says he has complex needs and currently lives in a specialist facility outside Ireland, in a placement made under a February 2018 order. The facility’s name is withheld in the source.
The court had previously extended his detention and other welfare orders. At a review hearing on 18 April, no report from an independent consultant psychiatrist (ICP) had been received. The matter was adjourned while a possible application under the court’s inherent jurisdiction was prepared. An ICP report that had appeared likely did not materialise.
Section 108 of the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015 requires the wardship court, when reviewing a detention order, to hear evidence from both the responsible consultant psychiatrist and an ICP. The ICP must examine the person and report, in particular, whether they are suffering from a mental disorder as defined by the Mental Health Act 2001.
Justice Heslin said the statutory wording made the ICP report essential to the review. Without the ICP’s opinion on whether the mental-disorder definition applied, the court could not complete its section 108 task. He said the 2015 Act did not offer a solution for bypassing the express requirement.
The judge considered the High Court’s earlier decision in HSE v M.C. [2024] IEHC 47. In that case, the court had allowed a section 108 review to proceed despite the absence of a responsible consultant psychiatrist, because the ICP’s role was crucial and the ICP had provided an opinion. Justice Heslin said the present case was materially different: here, it was the ICP evidence that was missing.
The ruling was limited to that procedural issue. Justice Heslin held that an application invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction was not precluded, noting that section 4(5) of the 2015 Act preserves that jurisdiction. The ruling does not state a final decision on such an application or a new order changing the ward’s detention or placement.