The High Court has found that the Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital did not breach a statutory duty or M.C.’s constitutional or European Convention rights by refusing to implement proposed changes to her conditional discharge. It declined to award damages and said the remaining issues were moot after M.C. was unconditionally discharged.
The judicial review, brought in July 2014, challenged the refusal to make arrangements for a varied conditional discharge order. The Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board had proposed making M.C. the primary decision-maker about where she lived. The Clinical Director refused, citing clinical concerns about domestic stress, the risk of relapse and the treating team’s ability to respond if her living arrangements changed.
M.C. had been conditionally discharged from the Central Mental Hospital. The judgment recounts that, in June 2013, she reported that her husband had verbally abused her and threatened physical violence against their teenage son. She contacted Gardaí, and her psychiatrist moved her from the family home to her mother’s address. The judgment also records a psychotic relapse earlier that year. M.C. later spent time, including overnight stays, at the family home and was living there full time in the weeks before the judicial review began.
The Board varied the discharge conditions, but the Clinical Director did not confirm that the arrangements needed to implement the variation would be made. The Board maintained that it was prepared to vary the order but could not do so without that confirmation.
In December 2014, the Board granted M.C. an unconditional discharge. The parties agreed that this made some requested remedies, including orders of certiorari and mandamus, moot. M.C. pursued declarations alleging breach of statutory duty and rights, as well as damages.
Justice Eagar said the Board had a duty to respond to concerns raised by the treating psychiatrist and Clinical Director, and observed that the material before him did not show the Board had addressed those concerns. However, he concluded that the Clinical Director was entitled to disagree with the Board’s decision and that the Board had asked him to reconsider. On that basis, the court found no breach of statutory duty and no violation of the rights claimed.
The court refused damages, stating that the Clinical Director had acted in the interests of M.C. and the public. It concluded that the outstanding issues were moot, while setting out its views on them. The judgment does not grant the declarations or damages sought.