B v Clinical Director of an Approved Centre
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IECA 105 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeal Record Number: 2021/196 |
[2022] IECA 105
Birmingham P.
Kennedy J.
Ni Raifeartaigh J.
Court of Appeal Record Number: 2021/196
High Court Record Number: 2021 No. 960 SS
THE COURT OF APPEAL
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 5th day of May, 2022
. This is an appeal from a High Court decision on an enquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution into the legality of the appellant's detention at an approved centre pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2001. At the time of the application to the High Court, the appellant was detained in the approved centre, although he has since been released. Apart from a question of mootness which has been raised by the respondent, the case raises an issue of statutory interpretation concerning extensions of time made by a mental health tribunal pursuant to s.18(4) of the Act.
. It is not necessary to give any detailed description of the facts giving rise to the case, which are in any event set out in further detail in the judgment of the trial judge. It is sufficient to say that the appellant's admission to the approved centre arose initially from events on the 26 May 2021 after the Gardaí were called to the family home of the appellant and formed the belief that he was a risk to his mother and were not satisfied to leave him in the house with her. Events culminated in an admission order being made in respect of the appellant by a consultant psychiatrist on the same date pursuant to s.14 of the Mental Health Act 2001, and no issue arises concerning the lawfulness of any step taken prior to the making of the admission order or the admission order itself.
. An application was made for a review and a mental health tribunal convened on the 11 June 2021 to consider and review the admission order made on the 26 May 2021. It decided that because there was a conflict in the evidence which required witness evidence from the Gardaí, it should exercise its powers pursuant to s.18(4) of the 2001 Act to extend by 14 days the time within which it was required to make a decision as to whether to affirm or revoke the admission order, and adjourned the hearing to enable the necessary witness(es) to attend.
. On the 23 June 2021 the tribunal reconvened and heard evidence and submissions. It made a decision to affirm the admission order. It may be noted that the tribunal decision expresses the view that the appellant “is suffering from a mental disorder” within the meaning of the legislation in respect of which he continued to remain symptomatic in the form of ongoing delusional persecutory beliefs. It said that his insight and judgment “remain impaired to such an extent that ongoing treatment as an involuntary patient is necessary”. The tribunal said that the treatment being given to the appellant had benefited him to date and that its continuation would be likely to benefit or alleviate his condition to a material extent. It said that given his lack of insight and non-acceptance of the need for treatment, it would not be possible to treat him in a less restrictive manner outside the hospital setting. It was also accepted that there was a risk of non-compliance leading to a serious deterioration in his condition. I observe in passing that it is clear from these comments that the tribunal was looking at his condition not merely at the time of admission but at the time of its review.
. On the 28 June 2021, five days later, the consultant psychiatrist signed a renewal order extending the detention for a further period, to end on the 27 September 2021.
. The central submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the renewal order was made by the consultant psychiatrist after the lawful period of detention had expired. He contends that his lawful detention expired either (a) 14 days from the date of the tribunal's decision to extend (here, as the decision to extend was made on 11 June, 14 days later would come out at 25 June); or (b) on the date of the tribunal's decision (the 23 June). Since the renewal order was made on the 28 June, this was, he submits, after the lawful period of detention had expired, whether that is option (a) or (b). The respondent contends that the 14 days referred to in s.18(4) is added on to the 21 days following the date of admission, which in this case is a total of 35 days from the 26 May, so that the date of the renewal order falls before the expiry of lawful detention.
. The provisions with which we are concerned in this judgment fall within Part 2 of the 2001 Act which is concerned with involuntary admissions to approved centres. S.14 deals with admission orders:-
“(1) Where a recommendation in relation to a person the subject of an application is received by the clinical director of an approved centre, a consultant psychiatrist on the staff of the approved centre shall, as soon as may be, carry out an examination of the person and shall thereupon either—
( a) if he or she is satisfied that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, make an order to be known as an involuntary admission order and referred to in this Act as “an admission order” in a form specified by the Commission for the reception, detention and treatment of the person and a person to whom an admission order relates is referred to in this Act as “a patient”, or
(b) if he or she is not so satisfied, refuse to make such order.
…”
. S.15 provides —
“(1) An admission order shall authorise the reception, detention and treatment of the patient concerned and shall remain in force for a period of 21 days from the date of the making of the order and, subject to subsection (2) and section 18(4), shall then expire.
(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) may be extended by order (to be known as and in this Act referred to as “a renewal order”) made by the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the patient concerned for a further period not exceeding 3 months.
(3) The period referred to in subsection (1) may be further extended by order made by the consultant psychiatrist concerned for a period not exceeding 6 months beginning on the expiration of the renewal order made by the psychiatrist under subsection (2) and thereafter may be further extended by order made by the psychiatrist for periods each of which does not exceed 12 months (each of which orders is also referred to I this Act as “a renewal order”).
(4) The period referred to in subsection (1) shall not be extended under subsection (2) or (3) unless the consultant psychiatrist concerned has not more than one week before the making of the order concerned examined the patient concerned and certified in a form specified by the Commission that the patient continues to suffer from a mental disorder.
…”
. S.18 deals with the review of an admission order or a renewal order by a mental health tribunal and provides, in relevant part as follows:-
“(1) Where an admission order or a renewal order has been referred to a tribunal under section 17, the tribunal shall review the detention of the patient concerned and shall either—
(a) if satisfied that the patient is suffering from a mental disorder, and
(i) that the provisions of sections 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16, where applicable, have been complied with, or
(ii) if there has been a failure to comply with any such provision, that the failure does not affect the substance of the order and does not cause an injustice,
affirm the order, or
( b) if not so satisfied, revoke the order and direct that the patient be discharged from the approved centre concerned.
(2) A decision under subsection (1) shall be made as soon as may be but not later than 21 days after the making of the admission order concerned or, as the case may be, the renewal order concerned.
…
(4) The period referred to in subsection (2) may be extended by order by the tribunal concerned (either of its own motion or at the request of the patient concerned) for a further period of 14 days and thereafter may be further extended by it by order for a period of 14 days on the application of the patient if the tribunal is satisfied that it is in the interest of the patient and the relevant admission order, or as the case may be, renewal order shall continue in force until the date of the expiration of the order made under this subsection.
…”
. S.28 places an obligation on the treating psychiatrist to discharge the patient if and when he or she is of the opinion that the patient is no longer suffering from a mental disorder:-
“(1) Where the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of a patient becomes of opinion that the patient is no longer suffering from a mental disorder, he or she shall by order in a form specified by the Commission revoke the relevant admission order or renewal order, as the case may be, and discharge the patient.
(2) In deciding whether and when to discharge a patient under this section, the consultant psychiatrist responsible for his or her care and treatment shall have regard to the need to ensure:
(a) that the patient is not inappropriately discharged, and
( b) that the patient is detained pursuant to an admission order or a renewal order only for so long as is reasonably necessary for his or her proper care and treatment.”
. S.28(3) provides also for certain notification requirements upon discharge under that section:-
“Where a consultant psychiatrist discharges a patient under this section, he or she shall give to the patient concerned and his or her legal representative a notice in a form specified by the Commission to the effect that he or she—
( a) is being discharged pursuant to this section,
( b) is entitled to have his or her detention reviewed by a tribunal in accordance with the provisions of section 18...
To continue reading
Request your trial