The High Court has ruled that it has power under section 9 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 to make a standalone detention order for AJ, who is not a ward of court. The ruling did not itself make the final transfer and detention orders sought by the Health Service Executive (HSE). The court deferred that decision pending further submissions on safeguards and AJ’s existing order under the Mental Health Act 2001.
In an ex tempore ruling delivered on 12 March 2024, Mr Justice Conor Dignam said the section 9 jurisdiction could be exercised outside a formal wardship process. The parties agreed that the court had jurisdiction, and the judge noted that he had not heard contrary arguments on that point. He said his conclusions were therefore subject to full argument in an appropriate case.
The HSE sought orders to move AJ from an acute mental health hospital unit to a residential unit and detain him there, with provisions for restraint, medication and transfer if needed. The HSE also sought safeguards for his care and welfare. The court found that AJ lacked capacity in decisions about personal welfare, healthcare and where he should live. It accepted that his current hospital placement was inappropriate and that the proposed residential placement was suitable and necessary on the evidence before it.
The judge recorded that AJ’s mother opposed a direct return home at this stage only in the sense that the evidence raised safety concerns, while she wanted him ultimately to return to live with his family. She accepted the proposed placement as a means towards that goal but raised concerns that it was a four-hour drive from home. The judge said the placement’s distance did not make it inappropriate, given evidence that it was the only suitable placement then available. He said a closer option should remain under review and the HSE would need to engage with the family about visits.
The ruling also recognised AJ’s stated wish to leave hospital and go home, giving substantial consideration to those views while concluding they could not determine the decision in the circumstances described.
The court said detention under section 9 and an order under the 2001 Act could not operate simultaneously. It invited submissions on what should happen to AJ’s current admission or renewal order, and on safeguards including review frequency, evidence, independent representation and costs. The judge said he would not decide to make the substantive section 9 orders until safeguards were resolved. The matter was listed for further submissions the following day; the ruling left the inherent jurisdiction question open if those remaining issues could not be resolved.