The High Court refused an application to release a detained patient after finding that his transfer from a psychiatric unit to a medical ward did not comply with the Mental Health Act 2001. The court concluded that the failure did not make his continued detention unlawful in the circumstances of the case.
The Article 40.4 application was heard on 3 October 2007. The written judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 29 November, concerned the patient’s move from St Aloysius’s Ward, an approved psychiatric centre at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital, to St Teresa’s Ward, a medical ward at the same hospital that was not an approved centre.
The move took place on 20 September after the patient’s physical condition was reported to have deteriorated. The judgment records that investigations and treatment for his physical illness were considered necessary. At a review hearing on 25 September, the patient’s solicitor questioned a consultant psychiatrist, who said he had asked for the transfer to a medical ward but was not the clinical director. The clinical director had not approved or arranged it and had not been consulted.
The Mental Health Tribunal affirmed the patient’s renewal order, finding that the other requirements for doing so had been met. It noted concern that he was being treated outside the approved centre without the clinical director’s express authorisation. The High Court said the Tribunal was right that section 22 was outside the provisions it had to examine when reviewing the renewal order.
For the patient, counsel argued that the failure to follow section 22 meant his detention was unlawful and that he should be released. The Tribunal, the clinical director and the Health Service Executive argued that the renewal order remained valid and that section 22 did not invalidate the detention. The judge noted that section 22 requires the clinical director to “arrange” a transfer, rather than “authorise” it.
The court stressed that statutory safeguards for detained patients must be followed. It also said an emergency transfer should not be delayed if waiting for a clinical director could endanger a patient. In this case, there was no suggestion the clinical director was unavailable, and the judge said it would have been better practice for the director to arrange or at least know of the transfer. The court accepted that the move was made in good faith for medical reasons, with no suggestion it was prompted by lack of space.
The judge held that the patient’s detention in St Teresa’s Ward remained in accordance with law and refused the release order. The ruling addressed the circumstances before the court; it did not find that section 22 had been complied with.