The High Court ruled that a renewal order authorising J.B.’s continued detention was lawful, because the psychiatrist who signed it had an ongoing role in his care and treatment. The court allowed the State’s cause to be shown and discharged the conditional order in J.B.’s Article 40.4 inquiry.
Mr Justice John McMenamin’s judgment, dated 15 June 2007, gives reasons for a decision delivered on 23 May. J.B. argued that Dr Ronan Hearne could not make the 24 April renewal order because Dr Sally Linehan, rather than Dr Hearne, was responsible for his care and treatment. J.B. was detained at the Central Mental Hospital.
The challenge arose while the Mental Health Tribunal was reviewing J.B.’s detention under the Mental Health Act 2001. The Tribunal had adjourned its review to hear direct evidence from Dr Linehan about a second renewal order she had completed on 1 May. The judgment records that she later treated that order as having no effect, after being told Dr Hearne’s 24 April order was valid. The Tribunal’s review was still continuing when J.B. brought the High Court inquiry.
The court considered Dr Hearne’s involvement from 2002 onward. It found that he had assessed J.B. at the Central Mental Hospital, contributed to decisions about his care and future treatment, communicated with the hospital’s clinical director, and remained involved in treatment planning. His role was not limited to signing renewal orders. The judgment records that other psychiatrists also had responsibility for J.B.’s care.
The court distinguished an earlier High Court case, W.Q., in which a psychiatrist brought in only to review a patient had not been involved in that patient’s care or treatment. Mr Justice McMenamin held that the law did not require the responsible consultant psychiatrist to be on the staff of the centre where the patient was detained, provided the psychiatrist was genuinely involved in the patient’s care and treatment.
The judgment said that signing authority was an important statutory safeguard: a renewal order signed by someone without that responsibility could make detention unlawful. The court found that was not the case here. It held J.B.’s detention lawful and discharged the conditional order. It did not decide the separate question of how a Tribunal should treat failures to comply with statutory requirements that do not affect an order’s substance or cause injustice.