The High Court has refused an application to release an anonymised man detained at St. Brendan’s Hospital, ruling that a psychiatrist’s failure to tick a box on his renewal order did not invalidate his detention in the circumstances of the case.
The Article 40.4 application concerned a certificate and renewal order signed on 10 December 2008. The form required the responsible consultant psychiatrist to indicate whether the patient continued to suffer from a mental disorder and on which statutory basis. The psychiatrist left the relevant box blank but wrote that the patient had an incompletely treated psychotic illness and impaired insight, and that community treatment was likely to fail.
The Mental Health Tribunal reviewed the order on 22 December 2008 and affirmed it under section 18(1) of the Mental Health Act 2001. The applicant’s solicitor argued that the omission was a fundamental failure to meet the Act’s requirements and that the Tribunal could not repair the order retrospectively. The Tribunal initially considered its jurisdiction before hearing from the psychiatrist. It later heard his evidence, as well as the applicant’s, and had an independent psychiatrist’s report.
The Tribunal concluded that the doctor had intended to select the therapeutic ground for detention and that the missing tick did not affect the substance of the order or cause injustice. Its written decision mistakenly marked a box indicating the relevant statutory provisions had been complied with. The Tribunal chair later explained by affidavit that the box had been marked in error and that the Tribunal had intended to record a failure that did not affect the order’s substance or cause injustice.
The applicant’s counsel also raised a date error in the form, which gave the signing date as 10 December 2009 rather than 10 December 2008. That point was not pursued at the High Court hearing. A separate discrepancy over the stated end date of the detention period was also not pursued.
The High Court accepted that the Tribunal had heard the psychiatrist’s evidence before reaching its final decision. It held that section 18(1) could apply to the omission under section 15(4), and that the failure, in this limited respect, neither affected the substance of the order nor caused injustice. The judge considered the Tribunal’s decision consistent with the statutory requirement to give priority to the patient’s best interests, while also considering risks to others.
The court concluded that the Tribunal acted lawfully, found the applicant was detained in accordance with law, and refused his release. It did not order discharge or set aside the renewal order.