The High Court continued existing detention and care orders for a 37-year-old ward of court after a review on 26 July 2024, citing a recent decline in his mental health, self-harm and an admission to an approved centre. The orders allow temporary transfer there when clinically necessary and provide for his return to his usual placement.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the man had been admitted to wardship in July 2017. A review on 15 February 2024 had continued his detention at a redacted placement and made orders governing his care and treatment in his best welfare interests.
Evidence for the July review included reports from the responsible consultant psychiatrist, an independent consultant psychiatrist, the placement’s social worker and the man’s independent solicitor. The independent consultant’s April report said he appeared to benefit from the care plan at his placement and would be unsettled by a move to an approved unit. The judge observed that the report did not address every element of the Mental Health Act definition of mental disorder.
The treating psychiatrist reported eight significant incidents since the February review, including aggression, property damage and self-harm. The social worker also described a decline in the man’s mental health over the previous three months and said he continued to need two-to-one staffing. The judge noted that the man had since been admitted temporarily to an approved centre.
The independent solicitor reported that the man had described hearing banging noises and had bruising and cuts after striking his head and fists against a wall. She supported continuation of the orders, while recording his wishes to leave the placement, move to Dublin, contact family and have a mobile phone. She recommended reconsidering a phone after his mental health stabilised and medication compliance had been sustained for 60 days.
The judge said the recent admission showed the orders’ role in allowing a temporary move to an approved centre and a return to the placement. He continued the current orders and said they should be reviewed. The date of 24 January was suggested; the ruling does not specify a year for that date.