The High Court has refused an application for the immediate release of a Central Mental Hospital patient detained after a jury found him “guilty but insane” of murdering his mother in 1998. Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled that his detention was lawful under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006, and refused relief under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as L., had been committed to the hospital in April 2000. Under transitional provisions in the 2006 Act, he became entitled to the Act’s review procedures. The court held that the original committal order lasted only until the Review Board made its first review decision; subsequent detention depended on the Board’s orders under section 13.
The medical evidence before the court was that the applicant no longer had a mental disorder as defined by the Mental Health Act, 2001, and did not need inpatient care or treatment. Clinicians said he had a bipolar disorder in remission and an emotionally unstable personality disorder. The Board considered him suitable for discharge subject to supervision, but had declined conditional discharge because it believed conditions could not be enforced if breached and it was not prepared to discharge him unconditionally.
That position followed an incident during temporary leave in September 2009. The Board’s November decision recorded that the applicant had arranged for a friend to bring another patient to his rented apartment, although the meeting did not take place. The Board noted that his written leave conditions did not prohibit meetings, but considered the arrangement raised doubts about whether he would follow their spirit. His leave was cancelled and he was returned to Unit 7.
Mr Justice Peart said section 11 of the 2006 Act, which requires the Board to consider the patient’s welfare and safety and the public interest, did not itself give the Board power to detain. Where conditional discharge was an option, the Board had to consider suitable conditions and assess, on evidence, whether the applicant was likely to comply. The judgment said the papers did not show that this process had been followed and criticised the apparent presumption that he would breach conditions.
However, the application was brought under Article 40.4.2, which left the court to decide whether the detention was lawful or order the applicant’s release. It could not quash the Board’s decision and send the matter back for reconsideration in these proceedings. The court concluded that the November 2009 detention decision was lawful under the statute and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and refused the relief sought. It made no finding on whether a judicial review challenge to the Board’s process would succeed.