Transfer and Detention Under Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court
HSE v VF [2014] IEHC 628
The High Court made an order under its inherent jurisdiction for
the transfer of a 45-year old woman in need of special therapeutic
and welfare services from an approved centre to a nominated care
facility in circumstances where a lacuna in the Mental Health Act
2001 meant that no order could be made under the Act to effect such
a transfer. Read a detailed article on the judgment here.
Duty of Tribunal to Give Reasons
AX v Mental Health Tribunal & Anor [2014] IEHC
592
The High Court rejected a challenge to a decision of the Mental
Health Tribunal affirming an involuntary admission to an approved
centre for treatment of a mental health disorder. The judgment
contains a detailed discussion of the obligation on the Tribunal to
provide reasons for its decision on a review. It also considers
whether a defect in a prior admission or renewal order can taint a
subsequent renewal order.
Section 10 Examinations
LB v The Clinical Director of Naas General
Hospital [2015] IEHC 34
The High Court rejected a challenge to the adequacy of a section
10 examination carried out on the applicant prior to the making of
a recommendation for her involuntary admission to an approved
centre under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001. The
judgment considers the requirements of a valid section 10
examination, and in particular whether a medical practitioner can
have regard to personal knowledge he/she may have of a
patient's case when conducting such an examination.
Enduring Powers of Attorney
AA & Anor v FF [2015] IEHC 142
The High Court considered the general principles governing its
jurisdiction to supervise an attorney appointed pursuant to an
enduring power of attorney. The Court considered the following
issues (i) whether and to what extent an attorney acting under a
registered enduring power of attorney is obliged to account to the
High Court; (ii) whether and to what extent an attorney acting
under a registered enduring power of attorney is obliged to account
to other persons in a close family connection with the donor; and
(iii) whether the High Court has a general or specific supervisory
role in respect of the exercise of the function by an attorney, and
how such supervisory role is to operate in practice.
Capacity
Health Service Executive v JB [2015] IEHC
216
The High Court found that the defendant, JB, a young adult
suffering from a personality and conduct disorder, and who was
receiving treatment in the UK, lacked capacity to make material
decisions in terms of his medical treatment and therapy. The
defendant had expressed a wish to return to Ireland. The Court
recommended that a committee of doctors be established to oversee
his transition to Ireland and to advise on when and how such a
transition might be effected. The judgment includes a detailed
discussion of the principles which a Court must consider in
determining whether an individual has capacity.
Health Service Executive v KW [2015] IEHC
215
The High Court found that the respondent, KW, a young adult
suffering from a mental disorder not detainable under the Mental
Health Act 2001, and who was receiving treatment in the UK, lacked
capacity to make decisions regarding her future care and treatment.
The Court noted the respondent's wish to return to Ireland and
directed that her transition to Ireland happen within a three month
time span, or earlier if the treating medical team agreed. The
Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, ordered that the
respondent be involuntarily detained as a psychiatric patient in an
adult psychiatric ward in Ennis General Hospital, under the care of
the clinical director. The judgment includes a detailed discussion
of the principles which a Court must consider in determining
whether an individual has capacity.
Insanity and Fitness to Plead
FX v Clinical Director of the Central Mental
Hospital [2015] IEHC 190
The High Court considered whether the legal basis for the
detention of the applicant, who was charged with murder and an
offence contrary to section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the
Persons Act 1997, in the Central Mental Hospital was an order of
the Central Criminal Court, or a subsequent order of the Mental
Health (Criminal Law) Review Board. It also considered the
lawfulness of the detention. The Court also had to consider whether
the order of the Central Criminal Court was spent as a result of
the applicant's acquittal on the murder charge. The judgment
contains a discussion of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 and
the powers and duties of the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review
Board, which was established under that Act. It also endorses the
Supreme Court decision in EH.
This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.