M.M. v The Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Geoghegan
Judgment Date07 May 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] IESC 31
Docket Number[S.C. No. 81 of 2008]
CourtSupreme Court
Date07 May 2008

[2008] IESC 31

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham J.

Geoghegan J.

Macken J.

No. 081/2008
M (M) v Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4.2 OF
THE CONSTITUTION
BETWEEN/
M.M.
Applicant/Appellant
CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL
Respondent/Respondent and

and

THE MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Notice Party

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S15

MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S184

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S72(1)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S72

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S15(2)

B (J) v DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL UNREP MACMENAMIN 15.6.2007 2007 IEHC 201

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S21(4)

Q (W) v MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION & ORS UNREP O'NEILL 15.5.2007 2007 IEHC 154

MENTAL HEALTH

Detention

Involuntary patient - Habeas corpus - Renewal order - Signed by consultant psychiatrist - Consultant psychiatrist based in institution other than that in which applicant detained - Meaning of Çÿconsultant psychiatrist responsible for care and treatment of patient' - Whether necessary for psychiatrist in daily charge of detainee to sign renewal order - JB v Director Central Mental Hospital [2007] IEHC 201 (Unrep, MacMenamin J, 15/6/2007) considered; WQ v Mental Health Commission [2007] IEHC 154 [2007] 3 IR 755 distinguished - Mental Treatment Act 1945 (No 19) s 184 - Mental Health Act 2001 (No 25), ss 15, 21 and 72 - Applicant's appeal dismissed (81/2008 - SC - 7/5/2008) [2008] IESC 31

M (M) v Clinical Director Central Mental Hospital

1

Mr. Justice Geoghegan delivered 7th day of May 2008

2

This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court (Peart J.) in an application under Article 40.4.2 for an order for the release from the Central Mental Hospital of the above-named applicant/appellant, it being alleged that the appellant's continued detention in the Central Mental Hospital is invalid. The above-named respondent had made a return justifying the detention pursuant to a renewal order in respect of the appellant under section 15 of the Mental Health Act, 2001 made on the 27 th November 2007. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that this renewal order was invalid for reasons which I will explain. The above-named Notice Party was joined in the proceedings by reason of its statutory functions under the said Act of 2001.

3

The allegation of invalidity in respect of the renewal order is based on one point only and, therefore, this appeal involves a single net issue.

4

The Mental Health Act, 2001, although passed in that year, did not come into operation until the 1 st November, 2006. Prior to that time, the detention of the appellant in mental hospitals and the movement from one mental hospital to another was governed by the Mental Treatment Act, 1945. The appellant's family live in Cork and when the appellant developed a dangerous schizophrenic condition involving various illusions which led him to commit criminal acts, he was treated at the North Lee Mental Health Services, St. Michael's Unit, Mercy Hospital in Cork. From there because of the seriousness of his condition, he was lawfully transferred to the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, Dublin. This first occurred in 1998 and at that time the consultant psychiatrist treating him in Cork was Dr. John Cooney. The appellant's detention at the Cork hospital had commenced on the 13 th May, 1998 pursuant to the provisions of section 184 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945. Dr. Cooney was the consultant psychiatrist who certified him. By virtue of a transfer order and various extension orders made up to the stage when the 2001 Act came into force, the appellant remained for almost the entire time in the Central Mental Hospital. For the purpose of all the necessary orders the documentation was signed by Dr. Cooney. Dr. Cooney kept regular contact with the appellant including visits to him in Dundrum and was continually kept informed in relation to him. Visits to Dundrum were made with reasonable frequency by Dr. Cooney and on those visits there was a very good relationship between Dr. Cooney and the appellant. It is not necessary to consider the procedures under the 1945 Act because there is no attack on the validity of the appellant's detention in Dundrum before the 2007 renewal order was made. It is argued, however, on behalf of the appellant that under the provisions of the 2001 Act, Dr. Cooney was not the appropriate doctor to sign the renewal order of November, 2007. It is alleged that that had to be done by the consultant psychiatrist in daily charge of the appellant within the Central Mental Hospital. There is no dispute that this was a Dr. Dearbhla Duffy.

5

This argument arises in the following statutory context. Section 72(1) of the Mental Health Act, 2001 contained the following transitional provision.

" (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where immediately before the commencement of Part 2, a person stood detained under section 171, 178, 184 or 185 of the Act of 1945, he or she shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as having been involuntarily admitted under that Part to the institution in which he or she was so detained."

6

Immediately prior to the making of the renewal order in controversy therefore, the appellant was validly in detention in the Central Mental Hospital by virtue of the said section 72. Section 15 of the 2001 Act provides for the duration and renewal of admission orders. Subsection (2) of that section reads as follows:

"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."

7

The question is what is meant by the expression "the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the patient". It is not defined in the Act. The expression "consultant psychiatrist" is defined in the Act and is stated to mean "a consultant psychiatrist who is employed by a health board or by an approved centre or a person whose name is entered on the division of psychiatry or the division of child and adolescent psychiatry of the Register of Medical Specialists maintained by the Medical Council in Ireland". On the facts of this case the issue between the appellant and respondent is whether the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the appellant's care and treatment should be regarded as being Dr. Duffy, as he would contend, Dr. Cooney or both as the respondent would contend or only Dr. Cooney as the notice party would contend. If the appellant's contention is correct, that is to say, that the only person falling within the description is Dr. Duffy then it is contended that the renewal order is invalid and, accordingly, there is no lawful right to retain the appellant in the Central Mental Hospital. If, on the other hand, "the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the appellant" is or includes Dr. Cooney, then the renewal order is clearly valid. The learned High Court judge considered that both doctors fell within that description. I agree, though this approach necessarily entails a court giving an unorthodox though purposive interpretation of the definite article before the words "consultant psychiatrist" in section 15(2) of the 2001 Act.

8

I turn now to explaining why I have arrived at the same view as the learned High Court judge. My starting point is that I am convinced that the absence of a statutory definition of the expression "the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the patient" is quite deliberate. If as Mr. Feichin McDonagh, S.C. argues on behalf of the appellant, the expression must necessarily be confined to meaning the consultant psychiatrist in day to day charge of the patient in the particular hospital in which the patient is residing then it would seem surprising that the Act did not make that clear. It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • O'Sullivan v Mount Juliet Properties Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 3 July 2012
    ...Ward v O'Callaghan (Unrep, Morris J, 25/2/1998); Robins v Coleman [2009] IEHC 386, [2010] 2 IR 180; Stephens v Paul Flynn Ltd [2008] IESC 31, [2008] 4 IR 31; Dillon v MacGabhann (Unrep, Morris J, 24/7/1995) and S Doyle & Sons Roscommon Ltd v Flemco Supermarket Ltd [2009] IEHC 581, (Unrep, ......
  • F (E) v Clinical Director of St. Ita's Hospital
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 May 2009
    ...LAW PAR 163 MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S13(2) HEALTH ACT 2004 S38(1) M M v CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL UNREP SUPREME 7/5/2008 2008 IESC 31 JOHNS v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION 1992 FCA 169 1992 FCA 288 MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2004 S75 SCHED 7 MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2004 S59 SCHED 3 O'......
  • O'Sullivan and Others v Mount Juliet Properties and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 3 July 2012
    ...10/8/2007); Ward v O'Callaghan (Unrep, Morris J, 25/2/1998); Robins v Coleman [2009] IEHC 386, [2010] 2 IR 180; Stephens v Paul Flynn Ltd [2008] IESC 31, [2008] 4 IR 31; Dillon v MacGabhann (Unrep, Morris J, 24/7/1995) and S Doyle & Sons Roscommon Ltd v Flemco Supermarket Ltd [2009] IEHC 58......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT