The High Court ruled that A. M.’s detention at the Central Mental Hospital was not lawfully authorised from 19 February 2007, after finding that an earlier renewal order expired the previous day. It did not order his release immediately, giving the parties an opportunity to consider how further detention and treatment could be arranged lawfully.
A. M.’s detention began under the Mental Treatment Act 1945. A renewal endorsement signed on 18 August 2006 stated that detention was extended for six months “from 18/8/06”. The hospital’s clinical director said the hospital practice was to enter such endorsements in advance and that the renewal was intended to begin when the previous period expired on 24 August. The Mental Health Commission received conflicting expiry dates on forms: one gave 18 February 2007 and others gave 24 February.
A new renewal order was made on 19 February 2007 under the Mental Health Act 2001. At a hearing the following day, the Mental Health Tribunal accepted that the earlier renewal was intended to run from 24 August 2006, reviewed the new order and affirmed it. The Tribunal later concluded it had no jurisdiction to review that order again. A. M.’s solicitor argued that the earlier detention had expired on 18 February, so the new order was ineffective and the Tribunal had no valid order to affirm.
The High Court considered the lawfulness of detention, not whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the medical evidence. The judge noted that the available medical opinion supported continued inpatient treatment and detention, but said that did not resolve whether detention was authorised by law. The endorsement’s wording, and the statutory requirement to notify the patient of its terms, meant A. M. was entitled to understand that the six-month period ran from 18 August and ended on 18 February.
The judge therefore found that A. M. was not lawfully detained on 19 February, that the renewal order made that day could not lawfully be made after the prior order had expired, and that the Tribunal’s affirmation on 20 February had no effect. The court made no immediate release order. It allowed the parties time to address how A. M.’s continued detention and treatment could proceed in accordance with law.