Mental Health Tribunal v S.P. Health Service Executive

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon
• Judgment Date: 12 May 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 249
• Court: High Court
• Date: 12 May 2014

[2014] IEHC 249

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 4 CAT/2014]

Mental Health Tribunal v P (S) & Anor

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001

BETWEEN

THE MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL

APPELLANT

AND

S.P.

RESPONDENT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

NOTICE PARTY

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S14

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S3(1)(B)(i)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S3(1)(B)(ii)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S15

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S19(1)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S19(5)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S19(4)

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S19(16)

CIRCUIT COURT RULES (MENTAL HEALTH) 2007 SI 11/2007 REG 3

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S19

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S28

M (S) v MENTAL HEALTH CMSN & ORS 2009 3 IR 188 2009 2 ILRM 127 2008/38/8350 2008 IEHC 441

GALLAGHER v MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL UNREP O'NEILL 20.12.2013 2013 IEHC 617

Mental Health – Involuntary Admission Order – Renewal Order – Jurisdiction of the Court – Interpretation of Statute - s. 3(1)(b)(i) and (ii), s. 15, s. 19(4) and s. 19(5) of the Mental Health Act 2001

Facts: The respondent was subject to an involuntary admission order under s. 14 of the Mental Health Act 2001. The respondent was deemed to be suffering from a mental disorder under s. 3(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Mental Health Act 2001 (‘the 2001 Act’). This case concerned the second renewal of the involuntary admission order made by the consultant psychiatrist under s. 15 of the 2001 Act. The appellant sitting as the Mental Health Tribunal reviewed and affirmed the renewal order and the respondent subsequently appealed to the Circuit Court under s. 19(1) of the 2001 Act. The judge at the appeal hearing affirmed the making of the renewal order but reduced the duration of the order pursuant to s. 19(5) of the 2001 Act. The appellant appealed against the Circuit Court order on the basis that the Circuit Court could only affirm or revoke the order and did not have jurisdiction to vary it. This was the substantive issue for the Court to determine.

Held by O”Hanlon J:

The Court was obliged to give effect to the plain meaning of the provisions of a statute when it is clear. It was submitted that if the drafter of s. 19(4) of the 2001 Act wished to give the Circuit Court powers beyond affirming or revoking orders, words to this effect would have been inserted. The Court decided that only a clinical psychiatrist could make a renewal order and that it was inappropriate for the Court to interfere or limit the scope of clinical judgments. If the legislature had intended otherwise this specific power would have been included in s. 19(4) of the 2001 Act. Therefore, the decision to reduce the duration of the renewal order was quashed. This court affirmed the renewal order itself but went on to make a further order that the renewal order was to remain in place for the original time period prescribed by the consultant psychiatrist.

Factual Background

1 1. The respondent in this case was the subject of an involuntary Admission Order made under s. 14 of the Mental Health Act 2001, on 15 ^th August, 2013. The respondent was involuntarily admitted with the schizoaffective disorder. The respondent was deemed to suffer from a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 3(1) (b)(i) and (ii) of the Mental Health Act 2001 (hereinafter "the 2001 Act").

2 2. The validity of the involuntary Admission Order was subsequently renewed by the Mental Health Tribunal which affirmed the order. No appeal was made to the Circuit Court.

3 3. A renewal order was then made by the then responsible consultant psychiatrist under s. 15 of the Mental Health Act 2001, on 4 ^th September, 2013, for a maximum period of three months. The appellant sitting as the Mental Health Tribunal reviewed the making of the 3-month renewal order on 19 ^th September, 2013, and affirmed the said order. No appeal to the Circuit Court was made in respect of same.

4 4. On 14 ^th December, 2013, the then responsible consultant psychiatrist made a second renewal order under s. 15 of the 2001 Act, for the maximum 6-month period. That order would have expired on 4 ^th June, 2014. It is that renewal order that was the subject matter of the within appeal.

5 5. The Mental Health Tribunal conducted a review of the making of the said renewal order on 13 ^th December, 2013, and affirmed the making of the said renewal order. The respondent appealed the said order under s. 19(1) of the 2001 Act to the Circuit Court which heard the said appeal on 11 ^th March, 2014. The said appeal was heard approximately three months after the original review conducted by the Mental Health Tribunal. As of the date of the hearing in the Circuit Court, the respondent still suffered from a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 3(l)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Mental Health Act 2001. Evidence was heard from a different but substitute responsible consultant psychiatrist in that regard. The psychiatrist indicated to the Court that it was her professional opinion that a further period of four to six weeks was required from that date in order to continue the respondent's treatment, and thereafter, he would be discharged back into the community. Judge Doyle affirmed the making of the renewal order under s. 15 of the...