The High Court has dismissed P.C.’s application seeking the release of his 98-year-old mother, A.C., from St. Finbarr’s Hospital in Cork. Mr Justice Meenan ruled that the application was an abuse of process and that P.C. had not shown a fundamental denial of justice or other fundamental flaw in the orders underpinning her detention as an inpatient.
The application, made under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution on 11 May 2021, challenged a safeguarding order made on 27 January 2021. That order required A.C. to remain in hospital pending a further court order. A second order was made on 12 May, but P.C. told the court he was not challenging it. The court said that, in the absence of a challenge to the 12 May order, it could only conclude that A.C. was lawfully detained in hospital.
The safeguarding orders also restricted P.C. and his sister, V.C., from entering the hospital grounds, photographing or recording people arriving or leaving, and telephoning A.C. The orders allowed them to apply to discharge or vary them on 72 hours’ notice. Meenan heard the application over two days, on 13 and 14 May, and treated it as an inquiry into the lawfulness of A.C.’s detention. The Health Service Executive produced a certificate of detention dated 13 May, setting out the orders as the grounds for her detention.
The court found that P.C. had been told of the hearing scheduled for 12 May through a letter and emails, including an email attaching the hearing papers on 11 May. Although he maintained that he did not know about the hearing, Meenan found he had been fully aware of it before bringing his application and had chosen not to participate. The judge concluded that he had deliberately and consciously attempted to mislead the court. He found the application to be an abuse of process.
Meenan also considered P.C.’s submissions that the statutory basis for wardship was invalid, that earlier orders concerning A.C. were flawed, and that the January hearing should have been held in person. He said the wardship jurisdiction had been vested in the High Court by legislation, and that the appropriate route to challenge the January order was an appeal, with priority sought if necessary. He found the judge had jurisdiction to order a remote hearing under the Civil and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.
The court said the January order remained in force pending a further order, which was made on 12 May. It dismissed the Article 40 application, finding no basis to order A.C.’s release. The ruling did not determine a challenge to the May order, which P.C. had expressly said he was not making.