The High Court rejected an application to release an anonymised patient from the Central Mental Hospital, finding that the psychiatrist who signed the patient’s latest detention renewal was entitled to do so under the Mental Health Act 2001.
The patient argued that the renewal order was invalid because it had been signed by Dr John Cooney, a consultant psychiatrist in Cork who was not employed by the Central Mental Hospital. The applicant’s case was that the consultant responsible for care and treatment under the Act had to be based at the hospital, where Dr Dearbhla Duffy had day-to-day responsibility for treatment.
The patient had been detained at the Central Mental Hospital since 1999, following a transfer from Cork under the Mental Treatment Act 1945. After the 2001 Act’s relevant provisions took effect in November 2006, the detention was treated under transitional rules as one authorised by that Act. The current detention rested on a 12-month renewal order Dr Cooney signed on 27 November 2007 and the Mental Health Tribunal affirmed on 12 December 2007.
The applicant’s solicitor also argued that the independent psychiatrist preparing a report for the Tribunal had interviewed Dr Duffy rather than Dr Cooney, and that this undermined a statutory safeguard. The respondent and the Mental Health Tribunal said Dr Cooney’s long-standing involvement in the patient’s care distinguished the case from one in which a doctor merely examined a patient to renew detention.
Justice Michael Peart found that Dr Cooney had maintained regular contact with hospital staff, attended case conferences, communicated with the patient’s family and remained involved in decisions about the patient’s care and possible return to Cork services. Dr Duffy, who had taken over day-to-day care in 2007, considered Dr Cooney the appropriate person to sign the order because of his longer involvement.
The judge held that the Act did not require the responsible consultant to be a member of staff at the hospital where the patient was detained. More than one consultant could have a sufficient role, but the doctor signing a renewal order had to be directly and fully involved in the patient’s care and treatment. On the evidence, Dr Cooney met that standard.
The court was not satisfied that the Mental Health Commission’s direction to the independent psychiatrist to interview Dr Duffy rather than Dr Cooney had deprived the patient of a fundamental protection. It concluded that the renewal order had been appropriately signed and that detention under it was lawful. The application for release was therefore refused.