The High Court refused an application for release from detention by a woman identified in the judgment as F. W., finding that her release from Connolly Hospital on 8 August 2008 was genuine and that her subsequent detention under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001 was lawful.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 18 August 2008, concerned an inquiry under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. F. W. had been detained at the hospital under an admission order that was later revoked after the hospital’s clinical director, Dr Jacqueline Benbow, obtained legal advice that it was invalid. The order had been applied for by F. W.’s husband, who was disqualified because she had recently begun proceedings against him under the Domestic Violence Act.
The court recounted that staff told F. W. she was free to leave, although they remained concerned for her safety and urged her to stay voluntarily. After she contacted her solicitor, she left at about 11.30pm. The judge said she had been free to leave from 8pm and that staff’s delay of about 40 minutes, while they arranged for Gardaí to attend, did not invalidate her release. He noted there was no evidence she had been physically restrained.
Gardaí took her into custody under section 12(1)(a) and brought her to Blanchardstown Garda Station, where Dr Kahn examined her. He later recommended admission, and she was returned to Connolly Hospital at 1.10am. The applicant argued that the Gardaí’s belief and the doctor’s recommendation were not independent because they relied on information from Dr Benbow. She also challenged errors on Dr Kahn’s form.
The judge held that information from the hospital’s clinical director gave Gardaí compelling grounds for their belief, and that acting on it did not make their judgment automatically non-independent. He found Dr Kahn had interviewed F. W. for about 45 minutes and there was no evidence he failed to exercise independent judgment. The form errors did not affect the substance of the order or cause injustice, the judge said.
The judgment records that F. W. received a patient notification form on 9 August. It does not set out a separate order on that detention beyond refusing the relief sought in the Article 40.4 application.