RGF v The Clinical Director, Department of Psychiatry, Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Birmingham P.,Kennedy J,Ní Raifeartaigh J |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IECA 309 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | [2021 No. 180] |
In the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution of Ireland
[2021] IECA 309
The President
Kennedy J.
Ní Raifeartaigh J.
[2021 No. 180]
THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL
Unlawful detention – Release – Administration of treatment – Applicant seeking release – Whether the applicant’s detention was in accordance with law
Facts: The applicant was detained on 21st May 2021 in the Drogheda Department of Psychiatry on foot of an admission order made pursuant to s. 24 of the Mental Health Act 2001 on the ground that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder. On 25th May 2021, he was transferred to the Department of Psychiatry in Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise. The admission order was affirmed by a Mental Health Tribunal on 10th June 2021, and a renewal order of the same date, made pursuant to s. 15(2) of the 2001 Act, extended the detention of the applicant for a further period of three months. On 30th June 2021, a Mental Health Tribunal convened and revoked the renewal order, pursuant to s. 18(1)(b) of the 2001 Act, on the ground that there were defects in the statutory procedures; the applicant’s name and date of birth, as they appeared in the documentation, were incorrect. The applicant was notified of the decision of the Tribunal when it was read to him in full at 2.10pm that day. The staff of the department were informed by the applicant’s solicitor of their client’s intention to leave after a conversation with him at 2.16pm. At 3.20pm, while waiting for his wife to collect him, the applicant was detained by a consultant psychiatrist (his treating psychiatrist). The consultant psychiatrist certified that he had examined the applicant at 3.30pm, and at 3.35pm, certified that he was suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 3(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the 2001 Act. At 3.40pm, a second consultant psychiatrist certified to the same effect. A period of approximately 70 minutes elapsed between the applicant being notified of the decision of the Tribunal that it had revoked the renewal order, and of his further detention, purportedly pursuant to s. 23(1) of the 2001 Act. On 1st July 2021, an inquiry pursuant to the provisions of Article 40.4.2° was directed by the High Court (Meenan J) and made returnable for the morning of 2nd July 2021. On that date and with the agreement of all parties, the High Court (Hyland J) listed the hearing of the inquiry for 8th July 2021, with a view to providing an opportunity for written submissions to be filed. In a written judgment delivered on 19th July 2021, the High Court found that the applicant’s detention was in accordance with law and it refused to direct his release. On 30th July 2021, on foot of an appeal from a decision of the High Court (Hyland J) of 19th July 2021, the Court of Appeal refused to order the release of the applicant pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution, and dismissed the appeal. The Court stated that it would deliver a written judgment outlining the reasons for its decision.
Held by Birmingham P that what happened during the period of time between the decision of the Tribunal and the arrival of the applicant’s wife to collect him saw the applicant being provided with important professional advice. In Birmingham P’s view, the giving of that advice, alongside the urging of the applicant to follow that advice, meant that during the relevant period he was receiving patient treatment; he was doing so as a voluntary patient within the meaning of the 2001 Act; and he was present in the approved centre at a time when he was not the subject of an admission order or a renewal order.
Birmingham P upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of the President delivered (electronically) on the 19 th day of November 2021 by Birmingham P.
. On 30 th July 2021, on foot of an appeal from a decision of the High Court (Hyland J.) of 19 th July 2021, this Court refused to order the release of the applicant pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution, and dismissed the appeal. We stated then that we would deliver a written judgment outlining the reasons for our decision and this we now do.
. The applicant was detained on 21 st May 2021 in the Drogheda Department of Psychiatry on foot of an admission order. The order had been made pursuant to s. 24 of the Mental Health Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) on the ground that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder.
. On 25 th May 2021, he was transferred to the Department of Psychiatry in Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise. The admission order was affirmed by a Mental Health Tribunal on 10 th June 2021, and a renewal order of the same date, made pursuant to s. 15(2) of the 2001 Act, extended the detention of the applicant for a further period of three months.
. The appeal focuses on events that occurred on 30 th June 2021. On that day, a Mental Health Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) convened and revoked the renewal order, pursuant to s. 18(1)(b) of the 2001 Act, on the ground that there were defects in the statutory procedures; the applicant's name and date of birth, as they appeared in the documentation, were incorrect.
. The applicant was notified of the decision of the Tribunal when it was read to him in full at 2.10 pm that day. The staff of the department were informed by the applicant's solicitor of their client's intention to leave after a conversation with him at 2.16pm.
. At 3.20pm, while waiting for his wife to collect him, the applicant was detained by a consultant psychiatrist (his treating psychiatrist). The consultant psychiatrist certified that he had examined the applicant at 3.30pm, and at 3.35pm, certified that he was suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 3(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the 2001 Act. Five minutes later, at 3.40pm, a second consultant psychiatrist certified to the same effect. The proceedings before the High Court and before this Court centre on the period of approximately 70 minutes which elapsed between the applicant being notified of the decision of the Tribunal that it had revoked the renewal order, and of his further detention, purportedly pursuant to s. 23(1) of the 2001 Act.
. On 1 st July 2021, an inquiry pursuant to the provisions of Article 40.4.2° was directed by the High Court (Meenan J.) and made returnable for the morning of 2 nd July 2021. On that date and with the agreement of all parties, the High Court (Hyland J.) listed the hearing of the inquiry for 8 th July 2021, with a view to providing an opportunity for written submissions to be filed. In a written judgment delivered on 19 th July 2021, the High Court found that the applicant's detention was in accordance with law and it refused to direct his release.
. The particular statutory provision in issue is s. 23(1) of the Mental Health Act 2001 (as amended). It provides as follows:
“Power to prevent voluntary patient from leaving approved centre.
23.—(1) Where a person (other than a child) who is being treated in an approved centre as a voluntary patient indicates at any time that he or she wishes to leave the approved centre, then, if a consultant psychiatrist, registered medical practitioner or registered nurse on the staff of the approved centre is of opinion that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, he or she may detain the person for a period not exceeding 24 hours or such shorter period as may be prescribed, beginning at the time aforesaid.”
. Section 24 of the 2001 Act is also of relevance:
“(1) Where a person (other than a child) is detained pursuant to section 23, the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the person prior to his or her detention shall either discharge the person or arrange for him or her to be examined by another consultant psychiatrist who is not a spouse, civil partner or relative of the person.
(2) If, following such an examination, the second-mentioned consultant psychiatrist—
(a) is satisfied that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, he or she shall issue a certificate in writing in a form specified by the Commission stating that he or she is of opinion that because of such mental disorder the person should be detained in the approved centre, or
(b) is not so satisfied, he or she shall issue a certificate in writing in a form specified by the Commission stating that he or she is of opinion that the person should not be detained and the person shall thereupon be discharged.
(3) Where a certificate is issued under subsection (2)(a), the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the person immediately before his or her detention under section 23 shall make an admission order in a form specified by the Commission for the reception, detention and treatment of the person in the approved centre.
[…]”
. Section 2 of the 2001 Act sets out the relevant interpretations and two of the definitions that appear there are of particular significance:
“‘Voluntary patient’ means a person receiving care and treatment in an approved centre who is not the subject of an admission order or a renewal order…
‘Treatment’, in relation to a patient, includes the administration of physical, psychological and other remedies relating to the care and rehabilitation of a patient under medical supervision, intended for the purposes of ameliorating a mental disorder.”
. At first blush, one's reaction to a suggestion that the applicant might be regarded as a voluntary patient would likely be to dismiss the suggestion by making the point that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ms. K v Clinical Director of Drogheda Department of Psychiatry
...of the Act 24 In the decision of the Court of Appeal in RGF v. Clinical Director Department of Psychiatry, Midland Regional Hospital [2021] IECA 309, Birmingham J. identified that the live question in that case was whether, during the period between the making and notification of the Order ......