H (D) v Clinical Director of St. Patrick's Hospital and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MS. JUSTICE O'MALLEY
• Judgment Date: 18 June 2012
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 June 2012

[2012] JILL-IEHC 061801

THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. 518 J.R./2012

H (D) v Clinical Director of St. Patrick's Hospital & Anor

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Between

(D)H

Applicant

and

THE CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF ST. PATRICK'S HOSPITAL

and

DR JC

Respondents

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S3(1)(B)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S3(1)(A)

CONSTITUTION ART 40

1 MS. JUSTICE O'MALLEYDELIVERED 18 JUNE 2012

2 Taken from the transcript prepared by Gwen Malone Stenography and agreed by Keith Walsh, Solicitors (for the Applicant), A&L Goodbody (for the First Respondent) & Arthur Cox (for the Second Respondent).

3 I don't propose to recite in full either the facts of the case or all of the legal arguments made in it given the circumstances that this case was done reasonably rapidly today because of the circumstances of the Mental Health Tribunal hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

4 Essentially the Applicant's case is that on 28 May last his GP, Dr. C, filled in a form recommending his admission to St. Patrick's Hospital. The form briefly referred to his history of psychiatric illness and his current status. As far as the statutory regime under the provisions of the Mental Health Act was concerned Dr. C considered the relevant section to be Section 3(1)(b), which is referred to as the 'therapeutic ground'. However, on 31 May it seems that the Assisted Admissions Team, which is a private enterprise not directly employed by the Hospital or by the Second Respondent went to the Applicant' house and also it seems - .it is not clear what happened there -- went back to Dr. C and for some reason got him to fill in a new form which was also dated 28 May, although it was in fact by then 31st. The only relevant difference in the new form was that it now referred to Section 3(1)(a), referred to as the 'risk ground'. I think perhaps this has given rise to unnecessary confusion and it is undesirable in a number of aspects. I think it should be made clear to persons in the position of the Assisted Admissions Team that they may on occasion have a role in advising a GP who hasn't filled in one of these forms before, but I think it should probably be restricted to making sure that the form is fully filled in, on no account should they be seen to give guidance on what might be termed clinicalissues. I think it is fully understandable that the Applicant's solicitor on having seen the different forms and the differences between them should have become concerned and ultimately have brought these proceedings.

5 In any event the Applicant...