The High Court ruled that An Garda Síochána had no lawful authority to continue detaining A.B. after the Central Mental Hospital refused to admit him under a District Court warrant. It ordered his immediate release on 13 November 2012, while noting that Gardaí would shortly afterwards take him into civil custody under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001 to secure medical attention.
A.B. had been charged with assaulting T.C. at an opticians’ premises in Dublin and damaging the premises’ display window. A psychiatrist, Dr Paul O’Connell, assessed A.B. in June 2012 and concluded that he was unfit to stand trial, likely had paranoid schizophrenia and presented a substantial risk of reoffending. The report recommended assessment for involuntary admission if the criminal case was adjourned.
The District Court received the report on 12 November, five months after it was prepared, and found A.B. unfit to be tried. The next day, it issued a warrant directing that he be detained at the Central Mental Hospital for up to 14 days for assessment. The hospital’s clinical director refused admission. Gardaí took A.B. to Bridewell Garda station while the situation was addressed.
At the High Court inquiry into the legality of that detention, Gardaí argued that custody was lawful while they tried to execute the warrant. The judge accepted that Garda custody to convey A.B. to hospital could be implied by the legislation. But the hospital director had clearly said he could not admit A.B., with 18 people urgently awaiting admission. The court found there was no reasonable prospect of executing the warrant, and that Gardaí could not detain A.B. indefinitely at a police station in the hope a bed would become available.
The judge said the District Court had considered A.B. in immediate need of inpatient care, and was concerned about the risk of an unsupervised release. However, the High Court could not keep A.B. in unlawful police detention or attach a re-arrest order to his release. Gardaí indicated they would use section 12 powers after release; the judge was informed that this occurred.
The judgment also said that finding a person unfit to stand trial does not itself require a court to order treatment. It suggested that lawyers commissioning psychiatric reports address treatment needs promptly and said the fitness issue should have been brought before the District Court earlier. The High Court did not issue guidelines or directions for future cases.