MC v Clinical Director - Central Mental Hospital

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Eagar
• Judgment Date: 20 June 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 341
• Docket Number: [2014 No. 463 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 June 2016

BETWEEN

M.C.

APPLICANT

AND

CLINICAL DIRECTOR - CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL

RESPONDENT

AND

MENTAL HEALTH (CRIMINAL LAW) REVIEW BOARD

NOTICE PARTY

[2016] IEHC 341

Eagar J.

[2014 No. 463 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Health – Insanity – Murder of child – The Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006 – Committal to mental hospital – Conditional discharge from mental hospital – Compliance of conditional discharge order

Facts: The applicant, being detained in the mental hospital for killing her son and an attempt to kill her daughter, originally sought a declaration to the effect that the respondent was under statutory non-discretionary duty to aid her in fulfilling the terms of the conditional discharge order. However, following the grant of an absolute discharge to the applicant by the notice party, the main issue having become moot, the applicant now sought a declaration that there had been breach of applicant's right under art. 40.3 of the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights by the respondent and thus, the applicant should be paid damages.

Mr. Justice Eagar held that there had been no breach of statutory duty as alleged by the applicant. The Court observed that the refusal of the respondent to make arrangements so as to facilitate the stay of the applicant with her husband was justified as the applicant had herself lodged a complaint of verbal abuse against her husband with the garda, thereby causing variation in the conditional discharge order so as to allow her to stay with her mother. The Court found that since the applicant was detained on account of killing her son, her detention in the mental hospital was appropriate and in her best interests; thus, the question of awarding damages would not arise. The Court held that there was no violation of art. 40.3 of the Constitution or breach of human rights as alleged by the applicant as the respondent had acted in good faith for the welfare of the applicant keeping in lieu the fact that the applicant was susceptible to relapse.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Eagar delivered on the 20th day of June, 2016

1 These proceedings were taken by the applicant on 28th July, 2014, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) A declaration, by way of an application for judicial review, that the respondent's refusal to make such arrangements as are necessary for facilitating compliance by the applicant with the conditions of a Conditional Discharge Order, the subject of the notice party's decision at a hearing held on 14th November, 2013, (and resumed on 21st November, 2013) is unlawful, unreasonable and in breach of the provisions of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, s. 13A as inserted by s. 8 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2010.

(ii) A declaration by way of an application for judicial review, that the respondent is under a statutory non-discretionary duty to facilitate compliance by the applicant with the conditions of the order as aforesaid.

(iii) A declaration by way of an application for judicial review, that the respondent's refusal as aforesaid violates the applicant's rights pursuant to the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, Article 41 and/or Article 40.3 and/or the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Article 8.

(iv) A declaration by way of an application for judicial review, that the respondent's refusal as aforesaid is an unlawful and an unwarranted interference with the exercise of the statutory powers and functions of the notice party.

(v) Certiorari by way of an application for judicial review of that refusal.

(vi) Mandamus by way of an application for judicial review, directing that the respondent make such arrangements as are necessary for facilitating compliance by the applicant with the conditions of the Conditional Discharge Order as aforesaid, and/or comply with the statutory obligations pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, s. 13A, as inserted by Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2010, section 8.

(vii) Damages for breach of the applicant's constitutional and Convention rights.

(viii) Further or other relief.

(ix) Costs.

2 The affidavit of Áine Hynes, Solicitor, was the statement grounding the application for judicial review, which set out some of the history of the case and exhibited much of the correspondence. This application was made ex parte to Baker J. on 30th July, 2014, who granted leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review for all the reliefs sought in the statement of grounds save that for further or other reliefs.

She made a further order pursuant to the provisions of s. 27(1) of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, that the publication or broadcast of any matter relating to the proceedings which would or would be likely to identify the applicant is prohibited.

3 An appearance was put in by McDowell Purcell Solicitors, on behalf of the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board (herein ‘Review Board’) and on 5th December, 2015, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the notice party by its Chief Executive Officer Greg Hyland. A statement of opposition was lodged by the respondent on 10th March, 2015. The statement of opposition complained of delay on the part of the applicant and that the proceedings had been rendered moot following a decision by the notice party on 12th December, 2014, discharging the applicant unconditionally from the Central Mental Hospital. At the outset of the proceedings, the respondent sought a preliminary issue as to the proceedings being moot and this was agreed by counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent in relation to certain aspects of the proceedings.

4 It is also noted that no information was provided to this Court in relation to the reasons for the applicant's detention, namely the drowning incident on the 29th July, 2002, that involved the killing of her infant son and the attempted killing of her youngest daughter. This omission appears to this Court to be without explanation, as it was of relevance to the issues to be determined by the Court.

5 The applicant was:

(a) born on 2nd September, 1974 and is a married woman;

(b) On 29th July, 2002 she killed her infant son and attempted to kill her young daughter.

(c) On 20th January, 2006 she was found guilty but insane of the killing of her infant son and the attempted killing of her young daughter. She was committed to the Central Mental Hospital.

(d) She was re-classified as a person found not guilty by reason of insanity under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.

(e) In accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2006, the applicant underwent periodic reviews by the) Review Board.

6 On a review of 23rd July, 2012, the Review Board made an order certifying that the Review Board was satisfied with the conditions which had been agreed, and was prepared to grant a conditional discharge to the patient.

Condition 1.1 set out the following, that M.C. was to comply with the conditions laid down by the National Forensic Mental Health Service treating team in relation to her residing at any location and any change of location.

Condition 1.2 set out that the place of residence of M.C. would be determined by the legally responsible consultant psychiatrist Dr. Helen O'Neill, or in her absence another consultant psychiatrist, nominated by the Clinical Director of the National Forensic Mental Health Service. At all times the place of residence would be discussed with M.C., and any decision in relation to the place of residence will be based clinical reasons (this Court's emphasis) and insofar as is practicable, by agreement with M.C.

Condition 2 related to the maintenance of the applicant's mental health, and set out that the applicant should inform the treating team, if she experienced symptoms of mental illness, persisting psychological distress, self harm or suicide. M.C. would allow members of her treating team to visit her at home.

Condition 5 related to harmful behaviours.

Condition 6 related to intoxicants.

The conditional discharge order also set out that M.C. was required to inform the treating teams if her husband were to resume drinking alcohol (this Court's emphasis). M.C. was also obliged to inform the treating team of any deterioration in their marital relationship.

7 On 17th June, 2013, M.C. telephoned the Westport Mental Health Centre to report that her husband had been verbally abusive and had threatened physical violence to their fourteen year old son on 15th June, 2013. When M.C. tried to intervene, she said her husband retorted ‘who's going to listen to you anyhow, you mental whore’. M.C. rang the Gardaí, and her husband left the house before the latter arrived. Dr. O'Neill noted that at her last review with M.C. on 12th June, 2013, M.C. informed her that she intended to disclose to her husband that she had undergone a tubal ligation during her stay in the Central Mental Hospital. It had been her intention previously not to inform him of this, but on 12th June, M.C. explained to Dr. O'Neill that she decided to tell him because of the increasing marital tension relating to their sexual relationship. She denied at this review with Dr. O'Neill that her husband had resumed drinking alcohol.

8 Following the telephone call from M.C. to her local Mental Health Centre, she was removed by Dr. O'Neill from the home. Dr. O'Neill instructed M.C. that her place of residence would change from...