J.B. v The Director of the Central Mental Hospital, Dr. Ronan Hearne and another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR. Justice Garrett Sheehan
• Judgment Date: 15 August 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 340
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2007 No. 1130 SS]
• Date: 15 August 2007

[2007] IEHC 340

THE HIGH COURT

DUBLIN

[1130SS/2007]

B (J) v Director of the Central Mental Hospital & Dr. Hearne

J.B.

Applicant

-v-

DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL AND DR. RONAN HEARNE

Respondents

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S15

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S18

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S18(4)

CONSTITUTION ART 40

N v HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (HSE) & ORS UNREP 13.11.2006 2006 IESC 60

H (J) v RUSSEL (CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF CAVAN GENERAL HOSPITAL) UNREP CLARKE 6.2.2007 2007 IEHC 7

C (A M) v ST LUKES HOSPITAL CLONMEL UNREP PEART 28.2.2007 2007 IEHC 65

1 MR. Justice Garrett Sheehandelivered on the 15th day of August, 2007

2 This is an application for haebeas corpus pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution brought by the Applicant who is presently detained in the Central Mental Hospital on foot of a renewal order made pursuant to section 15 of the Mental Health Act 2001.

3 The Court notes at the outset that Ms. Kirby B.L. who appears for the second named Respondent Dr. Ronan Hearne has asserted that the matter is moot and relies on the making of a subsequent order to ground her client's Claim. Mr. McDermott B.L. Counsel for the first named Respondent sought to justify the applicant's detention on the basis of a particular interpretation of section 18 of the Mental Health Act 2001, which I will come to shortly. He did not attach significance to the subsequent order. The argument that the matter was moot raised a problem for the Court in that if it were to consider that argument, the Court would have been bound to conduct another enquiry because of a number of issues raised in the Applicant's grounding affidavit.

4 The Court therefore proposes to deal with the matter on the basis that the issue the Court has to decide is whether or not Section 18(4) of the Mental Health Act 2001effectively authorises a Mental Health Tribunal to extend the time of a renewal order when it grants an adjournment of a Mental Health Tribunal hearing during the course of its deliberations pursuant to Section 18 of the Mental Health Tribunal Act 2001.

5 Section 18 of the Mental Health Act 2001states:

6 2 "18. (1) Where an admission order or a renewal order has been referred to a tribunal under Section 17, the tribunal shall review the detention of the patient concerned and shall either -

7 (a) if satisfied that the patient is suffering from a mental disorder, and (i) that the provisions of sections 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16, where applicable, have been complied with, or (ii) if there has been a failure to comply with any such provision, that the failure does not affect the substance of the order and does not cause an injustice, affirm the order, or

8 (b) if not so satisfied, revoke the order and direct that the patient be discharged from the approved centre concerned.

9 (2) A decision under subsection (1) shall be made as soon as may be but not later than 21 days after the making of the admission order concerned or, as the case may be, the renewal order concerned.

10 (3) Before making a decision under subsection (1), a tribunal shall have regard to the relevant report under section 17(1)(c).

11 (4) The period referred to in subsection (2) may be extended by order by the tribunal concerned (either of its own motion or at the request of the patient concerned) for a further period of 14 days and thereafter may be further extended by it by order for a period of 14 days and...