F v Mental Health Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Dunne
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESC 44
• Docket Number: [Appeal No. S:AP:IE:2018:000090],[S.C. No. 90 of 2018]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 29 May 2019

BETWEEN

I.F.

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

AND

THE MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL

AND

THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

AND

THE IRISH HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY COMMISSION

NOTICE PARTY

[2019] IESC 44

Dunne J.

Clarke C.J.

McKechnie J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Finlay Geoghegan J.

[Appeal No. S:AP:IE:2018:000090]

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Moot – Mental Health Act 2001 s. 19 – Applicant seeking judicial review of a decision of the Circuit Court which declined to hear an appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Mental Health Act 2001 – Whether the appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Mental Health Act 2001 was moot

Facts: The Circuit Court (Groarke P) ruled that an appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Mental Health Act 2001 was moot as the admission order was spent and the relevant order under which the applicant/respondent was then held was a renewal order, which was the subject of an appeal to the first respondent/appellant, the Mental Health Tribunal. In the High Court, an order of certiorari of the decision of the Circuit Court was refused. The High Court judge (Barrett J) relied on what he understood to be a consistent view of the operation of the 2001 Act, that an admission order was replaced by a renewal order and that s. 19(1) of the 2001 Act confined the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to hear appeals where the patient “is suffering” from a mental disorder at the time of the appeal and that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the original decision of the Mental Health Tribunal in relation to an admission order where it had expired. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Hogan J in his judgment concluded that s. 19(1) of the 2001 Act must be read as if the words “… on the grounds that he or she is not suffering from a mental disorder” were “… on the grounds that he or she is or was suffering from a mental disorder”. The Court of Appeal also determined that the basis for the detention of the applicant at all times remained the original admission order and that a renewal order merely prolonged or extended the validity of the admission order. It was from that decision that the Mental Health Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held by Dunne J that, whilst agreeing with the order made by the Court of Appeal granting an order of certiorari quashing the order of the Dublin Circuit Court dated the 10th November 2015, she did not agree with the interpretation of s. 19(1) of the 2001 Act by Hogan J to the effect that the words “is or was” suffering from a mental disorder can be read into s. 19(1). Dunne J was satisfied that, having regard to the provisions of s. 15 (1) and s. 15(2) of the 2001 Act, an admission order expires after 21 days but the period of the admission order may be extended by a renewal order. Dunne J held that, in such circumstances, the admission order does not expire – the admission order is extended; that being so, the appeal was not moot when it came before the Dublin Circuit Court on the 10th November 2015.

Dunne J held that, in all the circumstances, the appeal of the Mental Health Commission should be dismissed and the order of the Court of Appeal should be upheld.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered the 29th day of May 2019

1 These proceedings arose out of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Circuit Court which declined to hear an appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Mental Health Act 2001. In the Circuit Court, Groarke P. had ruled that the appeal was moot as the admission order was spent and the relevant order under which the Applicant was then held was a renewal order, which was the subject of an appeal to the Mental Health Tribunal. In the High Court, an order of certiorari of the decision of the Circuit Court was refused. The High Court judge (Barrett J.) relied on what he understood to be a consistent view of the operation of the 2001 Act, that an admission order was replaced by a renewal order and that s. 19(1) of the 2001 Act confined the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to hear appeals where the patient ‘is suffering’ from a mental disorder at the time of the appeal and that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the original decision of the Mental Health Tribunal in relation to an admission order where it had expired.

2 The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Hogan J. in his judgment concluded that s.19(1) of the 2001 Act must be read as if the words ‘… on the grounds that he or she is not suffering from a mental disorder’ were ‘… on the grounds that he or she is or was suffering from a mental disorder’. The Court of Appeal also determined that the basis for the detention of the applicant at all times remains the original admission order and that a renewal order merely prolongs or extends the validity of the admission order. It is from that decision that the Mental Health Commission seeks to appeal.

3 It is important to ensure that a person who is involuntarily detained by reason of mental illness is able to avail of a legal mechanism to confirm that the procedures leading to their detention have been carried out appropriately and that the continued detention of the person concerned is subject to scrutiny. The provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001 are designed to provide the necessary safeguards. (The 2001 Act was subsequently amended but this judgment is focused on the 2001 Act as it was prior to the amendments brought about by the Mental Health (Renewal Orders) Act 2018. All references in this judgment are to the 2001 Act as it was before the amendments. The 2018 Act makes changes to Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the 2001 Act and also makes provision for ‘replacement renewal orders’ and alters the time periods for which orders can be made and grants additional rights of review. However, these amendments are of no material consequence in the context of the issues to be decided in this case.) Thus, where a patient has been detained pursuant to the provisions of the 2001 Act, the order by which the patient is detained, be it an admission order or renewal order, is referred to a Mental Health Tribunal to review the detention of the patient concerned (see s. 18 of the 2001 Act). If the Mental Health Tribunal is satisfied that the patient is suffering from a mental disorder and that certain provisions of the 2001 Act have been complied with, the Mental Health Tribunal affirms the order. The phrase ‘mental disorder’ is defined in s. 3 of the 2001 Act as follows:

‘3 - (1) In this Act ‘mental disorder’ means mental illness, severe dementia or significant intellectual disability where -

(a) because of the illness, disability or dementia, there is a serious likelihood of the person concerned causing immediate and serious harm to himself or herself or to other persons, or

(b) (i) because of the severity of the illness, disability or dementia, the judgment of the person concerned is so impaired that failure to admit the person to an approved centre would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in his or her condition or would prevent the administration of appropriate treatment that could be given only by such admission, and

(ii) the reception, detention and treatment of the person concerned in an approved centre would be likely to benefit or alleviate the condition of that person to a material extent.’

4 Section 3(2) goes on to give definitions of ‘mental illness’, ‘severe dementia’ and ‘significant intellectual disability’.

5 It would be useful to refer to a number of other provisions of the Act at this stage. Section 15 provides:

‘15(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) …

(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.’

6 Sections 17 and 18 of the Act provide for a review of an admission order or a renewal order by a Tribunal.

7 An appeal from a decision of the Tribunal is provided for in s. 19 of the 2001 Act which states as follows:

‘19(1) A patient may appeal to the Circuit Court against a decision of a tribunal to affirm an order made in respect of him or her on the grounds that he or she is not suffering from a mental disorder.

(2) An appeal under this section shall be brought by the patient by notice in writing within 14 days of the receipt by him or her or by his or her legal representative of notice under section 18 of the decision concerned.

(3) …

(4) On appeal to it under subsection (1), the Circuit Court shall -

(a) unless it is shown by the patient to the satisfaction of the Court that he or she is not suffering from a mental disorder, by order affirm the order, or

(b) if it is so shown as aforesaid, by order revoke the order.’

8 Finally, it may be of assistance to refer to the provisions of s. 28 of the 2001 Act which provides for the discharge of patients where the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the patient becomes of the opinion that the patient is no longer suffering from a mental disorder and can revoke the relevant admission order or renewal order and discharge the patient. Section 28(5) goes on to provide as follows:

‘Where...