The High Court has ruled that a person staying voluntarily in an approved mental health centre can be admitted as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act 2001, even if they are already physically in the centre.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 4 July 2013 in an Article 40.4.2 inquiry application by K.C. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of her detention following an involuntary admission order made on 7 June 2013.
K.C. had been brought to St. Loman’s Hospital on 24 April 2013 after an application by a family member and a general practitioner’s recommendation. The judgment said she had been acting erratically and believed a criminal gang was following her. After assessment, she agreed to stay as a voluntary patient, in part because she said involuntary admission would seriously affect her professional status. She later refused treatment, although she had not expressed a wish to leave.
The hospital considered discharging and immediately readmitting her, but its clinical director considered that approach impractical given her opposition to discharge. Instead, an authorised officer applied under section 9. Her registered medical practitioner examined her and recommended involuntary detention, and she was admitted under section 14. At the time of the judgment, a Mental Health Tribunal was still considering whether to confirm the admission order.
The applicant argued that section 14 did not permit admission where a person was already physically in an approved centre. She also argued that sections 23 and 24, which provide a process for detaining a voluntary patient who indicates a wish to leave, set out the only circumstances in which a voluntary patient could be detained and converted to involuntary status.
Justice Hogan rejected both arguments. He said section 14 was concerned with a patient’s legal status, rather than their physical location. He also found that sections 23 and 24 addressed the specific situation where a voluntary patient seeks to leave, and did not exclude use of the section 9 and section 14 process for someone who had not indicated a wish to leave.
The court held that the detention was lawful and refused to order the applicant’s release under Article 40.4.2. The judgment decided the legality of the detention challenged in these proceedings; it records that the tribunal’s consideration of whether to confirm the admission order remained pending.