G.F. v Clinical Director of Acute Psychiatric Unit and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hogan |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] IEHC 309 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 04 July 2013 |
[2013] IEHC 309
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 S5(2)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 S5(1)(E)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S4(2)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 S5(1)(F)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S4(3)
M (T) v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 2011 4 IR 621 2011/34/9396 2011 IEHC 336
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 S5(1)(G)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 (REMOVAL PLACES OF DETENTION) REGS 2005 SI 56/2005
NI v GARDA COMMISSIONER UNREP HOGAN 27.3.2013 2013 IEHC 134
DUNNE v CLINTON 1930 IR 366
IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S4
IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S4(4)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 S5(3)(A)
IMMIGRATION ACT 2003 S5(2)(A)
JUSTICE AND LAW REFORM (ALTERATION OF NAME OF DEPARTMENT AND TITLE OF MINISTER) ORDER 2011 SI 138/2011
MCDONAGH, STATE v FRAWLEY 1978 IR 131
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legality of detention
Facts: The applicant had been admitted as an involuntary patient at the respondent”s hospital following the making of an order under s. 14 of the Mental Health Act 2001 (‘the 2001 Act’) on the 11th June 2013. This order was affirmed by the Mental Health Tribunal on the 21st June 2013. Prior to the order being made, the applicant was examined by a Dr Maloney who determined that acute psychiatric treatment was required and so filled out a ‘Form 5’ which was a type of form supplied by the Mental Health Commission to registered medical practitioners that were used to obtain an involuntary admission of an adult patient. However, Dr Maloney neglected to fill out Part 7 of the form which would have been his recommendation of the involuntary admission.
The applicant argued that he should be released under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution on the basis that this recommendation had not been included in the Form 5 in breach of s. 10 of the Mental 2001 Act. The respondent contended that despite Part 7 being omitted from Form 5, the recommendation had implicitly been made. It was pointed out that the Mental Health Tribunal had made such a finding on the 21st June 2013 and used its power under s. 18(1)(a)(ii) of the 2001 Act to conclude that the order was valid notwithstanding the Part 7 omission.
Held by Hogan J that s. 18 of the 2001 Act granted powers to the Mental Health Tribunal that were essential to ensure that actions under the statute were not unnecessarily dismissed due to minor procedural non-compliance. It was held that the power could be used in circumstances where the substance of the procedural protections was satisfied. It was further held that on consideration of the present circumstances, the Mental Health Tribunal could not be faulted for invoking its power under this section. Dr Maloney had clearly been of the opinion that the applicant required admission as an involuntarily patient for acute psychiatric treatment therefore his failure to fill out Part 7 of Form 5 could not be seen as anything but an inadvertent omission.
Application for an order for release pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution refused.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hogan delivered on 4th July, 2013
1. In these Article 40 proceedings the applicants challenges the legality of his detention at the Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Tallaght, under the terms of the Mental Health Act 2001 ("the 2001 Act"). The applicant is detained pursuant to an admission order which was made under s. 14 of the 2001 Act on 11 th June 2013. This order was affirmed by the Mental Health Tribunal on 21 st June 2013.
2. The applicant is now aged in his early 30s and up to recently he was living with a long-standing partner with whom he has had two daughters, aged 2 years and 6 years respectively. In recent weeks he has become convinced that his wife has formed a romantic attachment with another man and that this man comes to their house and arranges to put indecent photographs of their daughters on internet websites. He is also convinced that the family home has been bugged with camera and listening devices and that his partner is part of this conspiracy.
3. On June 10 th, 2013 Gardai became involved when passers-by telephoned Crumlin Garda station to report that the applicant was assaulting his partner on the street. Gardai arranged for the patient to be seen by a Dr. Moloney at Crumlin Garda Station. It seems clear that Dr. Maloney formed the view that the applicant needed acute psychiatric care because he filled out what is known as a "Form 5", i.e., the form supplied by the Mental Health Commission in respect of those cases where a registered medical practitioner seeks the involuntary admission of an adult patient. Part 8 of the form requires the registered medical practitioner to give a clinical description of the patient's medical condition and Dr. Maloney here stated "paranoid delusions, thought disorder".
4. Unfortunately, Dr. Maloney did not complete an entry for Part 7 which provides:
"In my opinion this person is suffering from a mental disorder 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 to other persons,
OR
a (b)(i) because of the severity, 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.
OR
(a) (as above)
AND
(b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial