The High Court continued orders requiring a man in his 30s, anonymised as P.T., to remain at a redacted placement where he had lived for some time. The orders also allow the placement’s manager to take steps considered reasonably necessary for his safety and welfare, including regulating outings and visits.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin made the decision on 11 June 2024 in a review under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The orders had been made on 15 March 2024 and are subject to regular review. The court said the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015 did not address the specific facts of the case, and that orders previously made under the wardship jurisdiction could not be continued on that basis.
The Health Service Executive applied to continue the orders. The court considered an affidavit from an HSE solicitor and a report dated 6 June by a consultant psychiatrist. The report described P.T. as having a complex presentation, including diagnoses of general learning disability and autism spectrum disorder, and a complex trauma history. It said he received individualised support, close supervision and a high level of staff assistance, and appeared settled in his house.
The psychiatrist reported risks that included unpredictable behaviour, verbal and physical aggression, self-injury, property damage and absconding. She said P.T.’s disability impaired his ability to understand and weigh information about his physical welfare, health and financial needs, and that he was not in a position to vindicate his constitutional rights, particularly his right to life. She considered continuation of the orders reasonable and proportionate.
The court also considered an affidavit from a solicitor representing P.T.’s committee. It described advice from a multidisciplinary team, whose members were concerned that discussing the court applications with P.T. would cause distress. At a meeting on 22 February, the team considered him unable to understand or engage with the application, or to process, retain or express a view on the relevant information. The solicitor said she knew of no change requiring a different approach; the issue would remain under review.
Justice Heslin was satisfied it was appropriate to proceed without P.T.’s participation, finding that he could not participate meaningfully and that insisting on it would cause avoidable distress. He concluded that continuing the orders was necessary and proportionate to protect the respondent’s fundamental rights. The ruling did not set out a new end date for the orders and reiterated that they should be reviewed regularly.