Blehein v St John of God's Hospital

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinnness
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] IESC 43
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 31 May 2002

[2002] IESC 43

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham, J.

McGuinness, J.

Geoghegan, J.

329/2000

BLEHEIN v. ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL

BETWEEN

LOUIS BLEHEIN

APPLICANT/APPELLANT

AND

ST. JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL

RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOTICE PARTY

Citations:

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S260(1)

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S260

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS) ACT 1954 S2(3)

BLEHEIN V MURPHY NO 2 2000 3 IR 359

BLEHEIN V MURPHY & ORS 2000 2 IR 231

RSC O.60 r1

CONSTITUTION ART 5

CONSTITUTION ART 6

CONSTITUTION ART 15

CONSTITUTION ART 34

CONSTITUTION ART 37

CONSTITUTION ART 38

CONSTITUTION ART 40

CONSTITUTION ART 41

CONSTITUTION ART 43

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S185

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S186

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S158

MELLY V MORAN & NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD UNREP MCGUINNESS 19.6.1997 1998/26/10309

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1953 S5

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1953 S5(2)

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S185(4)

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1953 S5(4)

MURPHY V ROCHE 1987 IR 106

BRADY V DONEGAL CO COUNCIL 1989 ILRM 282

Synopsis:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Mental health

Medicine - Locus standi - Constitutional law - Amendment of proceedings - Whether detention in hospital unlawful and unconstitutional - Whether premises properly designated to receive temporary patients - Whether substantial grounds for contending that defendants acted in bad faith or without reasonable care - Mental Treatment Act, 1945 sections 185, 260 - Mental Treatment Act, 1953 section 5 (329/2000 - SC - 31/5/2002)

Blehein v St. John of Gods Hospital

Facts: The applicant sought leave under section 260 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945 to institute proceedings in relation to being detained in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant sought a number of declarations and claimed, inter alia, that proper procedures had not been followed in relation to the procurement of an order for his detention. The applicant also contended that the institution in question had not been properly designated to receive temporary patients as required under the relevant legislation. O'Sullivan J held that the applicant had failed to adduce substantial grounds in relation to his complaints and dismissed the application. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. The applicant also sought to raise the constitutionality of section 260 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945.

Held by the Supreme Court (McGuinness J delivering judgment; Denham J and Geoghegan J agreeing) in dismissing the appeal. As no exceptional circumstances existed the court would not consider issues relating to the constitutionality of the 1945 Act. The applicant had been detained in accordance with the procedures set out in the legislation. The grounds of appeal adduced by the applicant had not been made out and the appeal would be dismissed. The applicant's challenge to the constitutionality of the 1945 Act must firstly be fully argued in the High Court. The applicant's prima facie right of access to the Court had been affected by the operation of the section in question and he was in a position to argue that he had locus standi to maintain constitutional proceedings.

1 Judgment of Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinnnessdelivered the 31st day of May 2002 [NEM DISS]

2 In these proceedings the Applicant/Appellant sought leave of the High Court pursuant to Section 260(1) of the Mental Treatment Act 1945(as amended) ( "the 1945 Act") to bring proceedings against the Respondent hospital in connection with the exercise of its powers and duties under the 1945 Act.

3 Section 260 of the Act of 1945, as amended by Section 2(3) of the Public Authorities (Judicial Proceedings) Act 1954provides as follows:-

4 2 "260(1) 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 thatthere are substantial grounds for contending that the person against whom the proceedings are to be brought acted in bad faith or without reasonable care.

5 (2) Notice of an application for leave of the High Court under sub-section (1) of this section shall be given to the person against whom it is proposed to institute the proceedings, and such person shall be entitled to be heard against the application.

6 (3) Where proceedings are, by leave granted in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section, instituted in respect of an act purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act, the Court shall not determine the proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff unless it is satisfied that the Defendant acted in bad faith or without reasonablecare."

7 The draft plenary summons which the Applicant sought leave to issue claims declarations that:-

8 (a) the orders for the detention of the Plaintiff in St John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Co. Dublin, made by the Defendant his servants and/or agents on 26th day of February 1984, on 30th day of January 1987 and on 18th day of January 1991 are fraudulent documents.

9 (b) The orders for the detention of the Plaintiff referred to in (a) above were made without statutory authority, violate the guarantees of due process of law; that they impinge on the guarantees of the Constitution of Ireland 1937; that they were made in violation of the principles of fair procedure, contrary to natural and constitutional justice and that they are thereby null, void, invalid and of noeffect.

10 (c) The detention of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, his servants and/or agents, in the above named hospital from the 25th day of February 1984 to the 16th day of May 1984, from the 29th day of January 1987 to the 16th day of April 1987 and from the 17th day of January 1991 to the 7th day of February 1991 was grounded on fraudulent misrepresentation; was effected without statutory authority; violated the guarantees of due process of law, was achieved by means that were contrary to natural and constitutional justice, violated the provisions of the Constitution of Ireland 1937 and constituted false imprisonment.

11 (d) The compilation of a file or dossier, in relation to the Plaintiff, by the Defendant, his servants and/or agents, was unlawful for the reasons set out in (b) above, was contrary to natural and constitutional justice and constituted an invasion of the constitutional right to privacy of the Plaintiff.

12 (e) The intoxication of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, his servants and/or agents with neuroleptic/psychotropic drugs during the aforesaid periods of detention, constituted a violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional right to dignity, to privacy, to bodily integrity and to self determination and was contrary to natural and constitutional justice.

13 (f) The said intoxication of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, his servants and/or agents, with neuroloptic/psychotropic drugs during the said period of detention and contrary to his express wishes constituted assault, battery and trespass to the person.

14 (g) That the said intoxication of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, his servants and/or agents, constituted torture, inhuman and degradingtreatment.

15 In addition the Applicant (Plaintiff) claims damages, costs andinterest.

16 The factual background to the case may be briefly stated as follows. The Applicant was at the material times a secondary school teacher in Portumna, Co. Galway, He is a married man but has been separated from his wife for some years. The Applicant has been admitted to St. John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, on three occasions, from the 25th February 1984 to the 16th May 1984; from the 29th January 1987 to the 16th April 1987; and from the 17th January 1991 to the 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 Applicant was suffering from paranoid delusions concerning his wife's fidelity and similar diagnosis were reached by two general practitioners, Dr. Sean G. Murphy and Dr. Fionnuala Kennedy.

17 The Applicant previously sought leave to bring a different set of proceedings arising out of the same facts against different Defendants, namely the certifying doctors, his wife and a member of the Garda Siochana who was present when he was detained. Leave to bring these proceedings was refused by High Court and, on appeal, by this Court (see Blenhein v Murphy (No. 2) [2000] 3 IR 359).Prior to the hearing of the appeal in that case by this Court the Applicant applied to amend his notice of appeal to include a new ground of appeal challenging the constitutionality of Section 260 of the Act of 1945. This ground had not been raised by the Applicant in the High Court. This Court refused that application, holding that it was only in exceptional circumstances that a Plaintiff might amend a notice of appeal so as to argue a ground not argued in the High Court and that such circumstances did not exist in that case. (See Blenheinv Murphy [2000]2 IR 231).

18 In the present proceedings the Applicant, both in the High Court and in this Court, appeared unrepresented, as a personal litigant.

19 The application brought before the High Court was grounded on an affidavit of the Applicant sworn on the 27th October 1999. A replying affidavit was sworn by Mr Ray Leonard, secretary manager of the Respondent hospital on 19th November 1999. A supplemental affidavit was sworn by the Applicant on the 12th January 2000. The application was heard by the High Court on the 28th and 29th June 2000. O'Sullivan J. delivered his reserved judgment on 6th July 2000.

20 In the hearing before the High Court the Applicant made nine submissions, which are referred to in numbered paragraphs in the judgment of the learned High Court judge. I shall refer to these submissions in greater detail later in this judgment. In his judgment O'Sullivan...