D. -v- H. S. E. & Anor [2009] IEHC 488 (23 April 2009)

D. -v- H. S. E. & Anor [2009] IEHC 488 (23 April 2009)

Dr Dennehy was lawfully the responsible consultant psychiatrist at the relevant time due to a reciprocal cover arrangement, and the failure by the independent consultant psychiatrist to interview the responsible consultant psychiatrist did not invalidate the tribunal's affirmation of the renewal order, as there was no dispute about the applicant's mental disorder and no injustice was caused.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 488
Parties
Applicant: D.; Respondent: Health Service Executive; Respondent: Mental Health Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application Under Article 40.4.2 (habeas Corpus) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for release refused; detention held lawful.
Legal Topics
Involuntary Detention, Mental Health Act 2001, Procedural Compliance, Habeas Corpus, Tribunal Review Procedures
Mental Health Law Constitutional Law Involuntary Detention Mental Health Act 2001 Procedural Compliance Habeas Corpus Tribunal Review Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.

Applicant

Health Service Executive

Respondent

Mental Health Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application Under Article 40.4.2 (habeas Corpus) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the renewal order for the applicant's detention was lawfully made under s.15(2) of the Mental Health Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether failure by the independent consultant psychiatrist to interview the responsible consultant psychiatrist under s.17(1)(c)(ii) invalidated the tribunal's affirmation of the renewal order

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Dennehy was lawfully the responsible consultant psychiatrist at the relevant time due to a reciprocal cover arrangement, and the failure by the independent consultant psychiatrist to interview the responsible consultant psychiatrist did not invalidate the tribunal's affirmation of the renewal order, as there was no dispute about the applicant's mental disorder and no injustice was caused.

Court Disposition

Application for release refused; detention held lawful.

Orders

  • Application for release under Article 40.4.2 refused.
  • Detention of the applicant affirmed as lawful.