• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Mental Health Act 2001:  Themes from Recent Case-Law
 

Mental Health Act 2001: Themes from Recent Case-Law

on

  • 993 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
993
Views on SlideShare
990
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.linkedin.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • LW6558 Part 1
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • LW6558
  • Law558 Part 4
  • Law558 Part 4

Mental Health Act 2001:  Themes from Recent Case-Law Mental Health Act 2001: Themes from Recent Case-Law Presentation Transcript

    • Themes from Recent
    • Mental Health
    • Case-Law
    Darius Whelan UCC Mental Health Law Conference 26 Feb. 2010
    • Legal challenges only to be made if in patient’s best interests?
    • Voluntary Patients
    • Removals to Approved Centres
    • Power of Garda
    • Lack of interview by independent psychiatrist of responsible psychiatrist
    • Burden of Proof
    • Appeals to Circuit Court
    • Reviews if Order already revoked
    • Re-admission soon after discharge by MHT
  • Mental Health Commission Summary
    • Summary of Judgments delivered by the Superior Courts on the Interpretation of the Mental Health Act 2001
      • www.bit.ly/mhc-15
  • Legal challenges only to be made if in patient’s best interests?
    • The fact that s.17 of the 2001 Act provides for the assignment …of a legal representative for a patient …should not give rise to an assumption that a legal challenge to that patient’s detention is warranted unless the best interests of the patient so demand
      • E.H. v Clinical Director of St. Vincent's Hospital (2009) Kearns J.
  • Voluntary Patients
  • E.H. v St. Vincent’s (2009)
    • Patient initially admitted on involuntary basis, then remained in centre after involuntary detention ended
    • 12 days of detention in issue (Dec. 10-22)
    • Supreme Court – Patient was “voluntary” within meaning of s.2 of 2001 Act during that period
    • Act merely requires that person be receiving care and treatment in the approved centre
    • Kearns J.: H.L. v UK not relevant as in that case the patient was voluntary at the outset
  • M.McN. V Health Service Executive (2009)
    • Very similar to E.H. Case
    • Peart J. also emphasised hospital’s duty of care:
    • It would be grossly negligent for the hospital to bring patients to front door of hospital and say “off you go”
    • Doors could be locked for safety of patients
    • H.L. v UK was different as L. had been admitted on voluntary basis at outset
  • Removals to Approved Centres
    • S.13
    • If applicant unable to arrange person’s removal to approved centre, doctor may request clinical director to arrange for removal by approved centre staff [or by authorised persons]
      • Reference to authorised persons added by s.63 Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009
    • Known as “assisted admission”
    • R.L. v St. Brendan’s (2008) Supreme Court
      • Application under Art.40.4 of Constitution
      • If s.13 had been breached by use of independent contractors, later detention would still be lawful.
    • E.F. v St. Ita’s (2009) O’Keeffe J.
      • Judicial Review
      • Judgment 2 years after removal
      • Removal was effected by independent contractors – Nationwide Health Solutions Ltd.
      • O’Keeffe J. declared that 2001 Act had been breached
      • Led to 2009 amendment of Act (see previous slide)
  • Power of Garda
    • S.12 – Garda may take person into custody if has reasonable grounds for believing person has Mental Disorder and there is serious likelihood of serious harm to self/others
      • (Note harm ground only – “need for treatment” ground cannot be used)
    • He/she or another Garda must apply forthwith to a doctor for a recommendation
    • M.Z. v Khattak (2008) Peart J.
      • Applicant had been taken into custody by Garda under s.12 but application for admission made by brother
      • Held lawful. Application commenced fresh procedure under s.9.
    • F.W. v James Connolly Hospital (2008) Hedigan J.
      • Detention by Gardaí made on being phoned by psychiatrist
      • Held lawful
    • S.C. v St. Brigid’s (2009) Dunne J.
      • Gardaí took applicant into custody under s.12
      • Psychiatrist later detained under “need for treatment” ground rather than “harm ground”
      • Detention held lawful. Gardai had reasonable grounds.
  • Lack of interview by independent psychiatrist of responsible psychiatrist
    • S.17 – Independent psychiatrist must interview responsible consultant psychiatrist (RCP)
    • D. v HSE [2009] IEHC 488
      • Independent psychiatrist attempted to telephone psychiatrist at centre but got no answer; he was told that she was ill
      • MHT was informed of this but decided that, as it had no doubt as to patient’s mental disorder, detention would be affirmed
      • Peart J. - Failure to interview the RCP before submitting report to tribunal was not such as to render report invalid for purpose of s. 17
      • Defect in report is not so fundamental as to invalidate report to extent that the tribunal could not be entitled to have regard to it.
  • Burden of Proof
    • Act does not deal specifically with question of burden of proof
    • Act state s Mental Health Tribunal must be satisfied of certain matters if it is to affirm order
    • Arguable s.18 effectively places burden of proof on approved centre to show that patient’s detention is justified.
    • If patient presented no evidence, his / her detention could not be continued unless evidence from hospital justifying detention
    • However, there will be an independent psychiatrist’s report, and so even if patient chose not to participate, MHT could detain him / her if psychiatrist’s report provided sufficient grounds
    • English legislation required patients seeking discharge to demonstrate to the tribunal that they did not meet the standard of confinement (s.72(1)(b) MHA ’83)
    • English courts held s.72(1)(b) was incompatible with the European Convention
      • R v MHRT N & E London ex p H ( 2001 )
    • Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001: It is for those opposing the discharge to prove, or the tribunal to be satisfied, that the patient is suffering from mental disorder.
    • On appeal to Circuit Court: Burden of proof on patient – s.19(4)
    • Unclear whether this complies with ECHR
      • R v MHRT, N. & E. London, ex parte H. (2001)
      • Is an appeal stage different from first instance stage?
      • Reid v UK (2003) – Appeal courts should comply with Art.5(4)
        • See also Toth v Austria (1991); Navarra v France (1994); Rutten v Netherlands (2001)
    • T.S. v Mental Health Tribunal (2008) O’Keeffe J.
      • S.19(4) merely states that appellant must prove his/her case
      • However, this interpretation is questionable
      • Re ECHR case-law, O’Keeffe J. stated that all cases concerned first instance rather than appeals
      • However, once an appeal is available, the proceedings must ensure equality of arms
  • Appeals to Circuit Court
    • If patient has been released by time of hearing of appeal to Circuit Court, court cannot hear appeal
      • Han v President of the Circuit Court (2008), Charleton J.
      • Legislative purpose behind s.19 is to allow those patients who are still detained to have the condition of their mental health reviewed before the Circuit Court
      • Purpose is not to engage in an historical analysis
  • Reviews if Order already revoked
    • If patient discharged before MHT hearing, psychiatrist must notify patient of right to continue review (s.28)
    • If patient wishes to continue review, he/she must indicate this within 14 days of discharge
      • (16 patients did this in 2007)
    • Otherwise review will be discontinued
    • Unclear what purpose of s.28(5) is
    • Charleton J., obiter, in Han case:
      • Seems to involve historical review of whether patient had MD when admission order was made
    • Another issue: how can a patient who lacks capacity decide to seek a review within 14 days?
      • Referred to in passing by Peart J. in M.McN. v HSE
  • Re-admission soon after discharge by MHT
    • C.C. v Clinical Director St. Patrick’s (No.2) (2009) Hedigan J.
    • 5 January – MHT revoked admission order
      • (During tribunal hearing, patient indicated she would be willing to remain in centre on voluntary basis)
    • Jan. 15 – Patient re-detained under re-grading procedure in ss.23 & 24.
    • Hedigan J:
      • A MHT decision is not a bar for some indeterminate period to bona fide clinical judgements
      • Highly desirable that another tribunal should sit as soon as possible
    • [email_address]