The High Court ruled that W.Q.’s detention at the Central Mental Hospital was lawful under a six-month renewal order made on 28 March 2007, despite finding that earlier stages of the detention had serious legal defects.
Mr Justice O’Neill gave judgment on 15 May 2007 in an Article 40.4 inquiry into the legality of W.Q.’s detention. The immediate challenge concerned the March renewal order, made under section 15(3) of the Mental Health Act 2001 by Dr Damian Mohan. A Mental Health Tribunal affirmed that order on 16 April. The High Court held that the order was valid and that detention under it was lawful.
The judgment found that W.Q.’s transfer to St Luke’s Hospital in July 2006 under section 184 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945 was invalid from the outset. That provision required a certificate that recovery could be achieved with no more than six months’ treatment; the evidence showed that such a recovery period could not have been envisaged. The judge concluded that the transition provisions of the 2001 Act therefore did not apply to W.Q. when they came into force on 1 November 2006.
The court also found that a renewal order made on 2 January 2007 by Dr Miriam O’Leary was invalid. She had examined W.Q. for review but was not responsible for his care and treatment at the Central Mental Hospital; the judgment said that only a consultant psychiatrist responsible for that care could make the renewal order. The tribunal that affirmed the January order could not cure that fundamental defect.
The judge noted that no tribunal had reviewed W.Q.’s detention before the six-month period under section 184 expired on 2 January. He considered that omission immaterial to the legality of detention in this case because the section 184 order was invalid and the transition provisions were not engaged.
However, the court rejected the argument that the defects in the earlier orders automatically invalidated the later March order. It said the 2001 Act provides for successive, separate detention periods, each of which must be justified. W.Q.’s objections to the earlier detention and January order were apparent at the time and should have been raised before the January tribunal where it had jurisdiction, or brought promptly to the High Court. Although the earlier defects were neither cured nor excused, the judge ruled they could not now be relied on to defeat a March renewal order that was valid in itself.