Irish Association of Social Workers Learning from each other; Critical Reflections on the intersections between the Mental Health Act 2001 and Human Rights. Dublin, February 2019

1. 1IASW - Critical Reflections on Intersections between the Mental Health Act 2001 and Human Rights, Dublin, February 2019

2. 2
1 2 3 4 5

3. 3 3
1

4. 4
Chairperson:
Barrister / Solicitor
Consultant
Psychiatrist
Another
Person

5. 5

6. Role in transfers to Central Mental Hospital [Rare]
Role in decisions concerning psycho-surgery [not done in practice]
Treatment / medication decisions
Criminal matters – separate Review Board
6

7. Tribunal has limited powers
– only two main choices:
confirm or revoke order
To affirm the order, s.18 states that
the MHT must be satisfied that
• the service user (patient) is “suffering from a
mental disorder” and that
• certain procedures have been complied with,
or, “if there has been a failure to comply with
[these procedures], that the failure does not
affect the substance of the order and does
not cause an injustice”
7

8. 8

9. In Circuit Court appeals, the Act
appears to place burden of proof on
service user
It was argued that this breached the
ECHR
O’Keeffe J.: S.19 merely states that
appellant must prove his/her case
However, this interpretation is
questionable
9
St Brigid’s Hospital, Ballinasloe. Picture: Gerry Stronge, Connacht Tribune

10. 10

11. [It was later made available in Sept. 2017]
11

12. 12

13. 13

14. No new renewal orders for 12 months
If a person is detained for 6 months, he/she can apply
for a review after 3 months
14

15. Case concerned Mercy Hospital, Cork
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
service user’s (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.
15

16. I. Georgieva, E. Bainbridge, D. McGuinness, M. Keys, L.
Brosnan, H. Felzmann, J. Maguire, K. Murphy, A. Higgins,
C. McDonald and B. Hallahan
16

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. Currently, cases concerning involuntary
admission of children are dealt with by the
District Court – s.25 Mental Health Act 2001
Would a tribunal be a more appropriate forum?
See Law Reform Commission, Report on
Children and the Law: Medical Treatment (LRC
103, 2011)
Children

21. http://bit.ly/mh-3311
http://bit.ly/mh-7070
21

22. 2
22

23. 23

24. (Mental Health(Amendment) Act 2018 – not yet commenced)
24

25. 25
3
European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR)

26. 26

27. 27
4

28. 28

29. 29

30. — McMahon J., S.M. v Mental Health Commission (2008)
30

31. 31
Proposed Reforms in the
Expert Group Report (2015)
5

32. 32

33. 33

34. d . w he lan@ u cc.i e