Blehein v Murphy and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Francis D Murphy,Keane C.J.
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IESC 65
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 153 of 1999]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 13 July 2000

[2000] IESC 65

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane C.J.

Murphy J.

Murray J.

153/99

BLEHEIN v. MURPHY & ORS

BETWEEN:

Louis Blehein

Plaintiff/Appellant

And

Sean G. Murphy, Fionnula Kennedy, Patricia Blehein, RichardQuinlivan, Thomas O'Connor and Desmond Nolan

Defendants/Respondents

Citations:

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S260

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S260(1)

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S185

O'DOWD V NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD 1983 ILRM 186

BAILEY V GALLAGHER 1996 2 ILRM 433

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S185(4)

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S26

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S183

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ACT 1957

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AMDT) ACT 1991

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S260(2)

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S260(3)

MENTAL HEALTH ACY 1945 S184(4)

SHEEHAN V ALMOND 1982 IR 235

Synopsis

Mental Health

Mental health; involuntary committal; appellant had been refused leave to institute proceedings against respondents in respect of his being taken against his will to undergo treatment at mental hospital; proceedings had in any event been held to be statute barred; whether High Court judge was correct in holding that plaintiff had failed to establish "substantial grounds" for contention that acts purportedly done by respondents pursuant to statutory scheme in place had been vitiated by bad faith or want of reasonable care; whether there is any evidence to justify assertion that actions of respondents had been motivated by bad faith and had constituted a conspiracy against him on their part; whether failure of first named respondent, a certified medical practitioner, to comply with statutory requirement to undertake examination of plaintiff within period of seven days prior to application for temporary private patient reception order constitutes substantial ground for granting leave; whether any statutory provisions enabling proceedings to be brought outside limitation period applied; ss. 185 (4), 260, Mental Treatment Act, 1945

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Blehein v. Murphy - Supreme Court: Keane CJ., Murphy J., Murray J. - 13/07/2000 - [2000] 3 IR 359

The applicant sought leave under section 260 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945 to institute proceedings against two doctors, his wife and gardaí for being taken against his will to a private psychiatric hospital in 1987 and claimed that the doctors fraudulently certified him as part of a conspiracy with his wife. The High Court refused the plaintiff leave to institute proceedings and the plaintiff appealed. Keane CJ held that the plaintiff had failed to establish "substantial grounds" within the meaning of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945. The plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the defendants had acted in bad faith. The appeal should be dismissed. Murphy J in a separate judgment concurred with the Chief Justice and dismissed the appeal. Murray J concurred with both judgments.

1 Judgment Delivered the 13th Day of July 2000by Keane C.J.

2 This is an appeal from a judgement and order of the High Court (Geoghegan J.) in which he refused an application by the plaintiff under s. 260 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945(hereafter " the 1945 Act") for leave to institute proceedings against two doctors, his wife and three members of the GardaSiochána in respect of his being taken against his will to St. John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Dublin in 1987.

3 The factual background to the case, in so far as it is not in dispute, is as follows. The plaintiff was at the material times a secondary school teacher in Portumna,Co. Galway. He is married to the third named defendant, but has been separated from her for some years. The first and second named defendants are doctors who were in practice at the relevant times in Portumna and the fourth, fifth and sixth named defendants are members of the GardaSiochána.

4 The plaintiff has been admitted to St. John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, on three occasions, from 25th February 1984 to 16th May 1984, from 29th January 1987 to 16th April 1987 and from 17th January 1991 to 7th February 1991. On his initial admission in 1984, he was diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr. P. J. Cullen, as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. It would appear that the psychiatrist in question considered that the plaintiff was suffering from paranoid delusions concerning his wife's fidelity and similar diagnoses were reached by two general practitioners, Dr. Sean G. Murphy and Dr. Fionnula Kennedy. It appears that the plaintiff obtained the leave of the High Court to institute proceedings against the two last named doctors, but that he is no longer represented by the solicitors who acted for him in those proceedings and they do not appear to have gone beyond the stage of the issuing of a plenary summons. The proceedings which the plaintiff now wishes to institute relate solely to the bringing of the plaintiff to St. John of God Hospital on the 29th January 1987 and his subsequent detention in the hospital.

5 The draft plenary summons which the plaintiff seeks leave to issue claims declarations that

6 (a) the first named defendant (hereafter " Dr.Murphy") on the 19th January 1987 fraudulently signed and issued a medical certificate in relation to him which was libellous and defamatory and led to his unlawful arrest and detention;

7 (b) on the 29th January 1987, Dr. Murphy and the second named defendant (hereafter " Dr. Kennedy") fraudulently signed and issued medical certificates in relation to him to the same effect and with the same consequences;

8 (c) each of the defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, including his right to personal liberty;

9 (d) the fifth named defendant signed and issued a fraudulent garda statement purporting to validate retrospectively the unlawful arrest and unlawful detention of the plaintiff on the 29th January 1987;

10 (e) the fifth and sixth named defendants entered the private dwelling of the plaintiff without lawful authority and violated the privacy of the dwelling;

11 (f) the plaintiff has been libelled, slandered, damnified and defamed by the actions of each of the defendants.

12 In addition, the plaintiff claims damages, costs and interest.

13 It is not in dispute that on the 29th January 1987, an application for the reception and detention of the plaintiff as a temporary patient (private) in St. John of God Hospital was made by the third named defendant (hereafter " Mrs. Blehein") and that annexed to the application was a certificate by two registered medicalpractitioners,Dr. Murphy and Dr. Kennedy, in which they declared that the plaintiff was suffering from mental illness and required for his recovery not more than six months suitable treatment and was unfit on account of his mental state for treatment as a voluntary patient. It is further not in dispute that, on the day in question, Dr. Murphy and Dr. Kennedy were present in the house of the plaintiff and that there were also present a psychiatric nurse, Brother James Davis, from St. John of God Hospital, the plaintiff's brother, Brendan, and Garda Thomas O'Connor. Another garda, Garda Desmond Nolan, remained in a car outside the house. The plaintiff was then driven from his house to St. John of God Hospital by his brother in his car and was accompanied on the journey by Brother Davis and the two gardaí.

14 Section 260 (1) of the 1945 Act provides that:

"No civil proceedings shall be instituted in respect of an act purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act save by leave of the High Court and such leave shall not be granted unless the High Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the person against whom the proceedings are to be brought acted in bad faith or without reasonable care."

15 The plaintiff, who conducted the case in person in the High Court and again in this court, contends that the actions of the defendants were not only unlawful and in breach of the relevant Acts of the Oireachtas but were vitiated by bad faith. As the learned High Court judge pointed out, he is not alleging any want of reasonable care: his case is that he was the victim of a deliberate conspiracy to deprive him of hisliberty.

16 The application in the High Court was heard on affidavit only and there was some conflict of evidence as to what transpired on the 29th January. The plaintiff says that he queried the authority of the gardai to arrest him on that occasion and that he was assured by the fifth named defendant that there was a form signed by two medical practitioners in Portumna Garda Station which provided the statutory authority for his arrest. The plaintiff says that he asked if he could see the form or if he, the fifth named defendant, would read it to him, but that the fifth named defendant replied: " it is below in thebarracks". The fifth named defendant in his affidavit said that, on the occasion in question, he had in his possession a written request by Dr. Murphy to provide a garda escort, that he informed the plaintiff of the existence of the written request, but that he did not say to him that it was " below in thebarracks".

17 The acts purporting to have been done under the 1945 Act in respect of which the plaintiff claims the relevant defendant or defendants were acting in bad faith are as follows:-

18 (1) The signing by Dr. Murphy on the 19th January and Dr. Murphy and Dr. Kennedy on the 29th January of certificates to the effect that the plaintiff was suffering from mental illness, required for his recovery not more than six months' suitable treatment and was unfit on account of his mental state for treatment as a voluntary patient;

19 (2) The signing by Mrs. Blehein of the application pursuant to s. 185 of the 1985 Act;

20 (3) The entry by Dr. Murphy, Dr. Kennedy and the fifth and sixth named defendants into the dwelling house of the plaintiff on the 29thJanuary;

21 (4) The participation by the fifth and sixth named defendants in the conveying of the...