The High Court dismissed T. O’D.’s application challenging his detention at the Central Mental Hospital, ruling that earlier periods of unlawful detention had been rectified by Mental Health Tribunal orders under the Mental Health Act 2001.
In a judgment delivered on 25 April 2007, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the applicant had experienced unlawful detention in the past because required renewal orders were not made on time. The court said the lapses arose from mistake, not malice, and found no reckless or inhumane treatment. It held that the Tribunal had power under section 18 to affirm a detention order despite procedural defects where the patient had a mental disorder, the defect did not affect the order’s substance and it caused no injustice.
The case concerned two episodes after the Mental Health Act 2001 provisions came into operation. In December 2006, hospital staff discovered that a renewal order under the previous Mental Treatment Act 1945 had not been extended. T. O’D. initially agreed to remain voluntarily, but the court said his condition later deteriorated and he lacked capacity to give valid, informed consent. A 24-hour detention procedure was used, followed by an admission order. In January 2007, staff discovered another missing renewal order. A further 24-hour certificate was not completed within the statutory period; the court said the procedure was completed six days late.
The Mental Health Tribunal reviewed the December admission order in January 2007 and affirmed it. In February, it affirmed the January order, finding that its substance was valid and that the procedural irregularities caused no injustice. The Tribunal had considered medical evidence, an independent report and submissions from the patient’s legal representative, as well as evidence from T. O’D.
Justice Charleton held that section 23’s 24-hour detention period is a strict limit. A second consultant psychiatrist must examine the patient and the decision to detain or release must be made within that period. He also ruled that a Tribunal reviewing detention must consider the patient’s best interests and rights, alongside risks to others, as required by section 4.
The judge said the High Court’s role in an Article 40.4.2 inquiry was limited to deciding whether detention was lawful at the time of the application. Where a Tribunal has validly cured a period of unlawful detention under section 18, he said, habeas corpus is no longer available. The judgment left any further review to the statutory process.