Health Service Executive v M.C. (Approved) [2024] IEHC 47 (01 February 2024)

Health Service Executive v M.C. (Approved) [2024] IEHC 47 (01 February 2024)

Section 108(1) of the ADMCA requires the court to review the detention order of any ward detained in a non-approved centre at the time of commencement, regardless of whether the ward has a mental disorder or a responsible consultant psychiatrist. The absence of a responsible consultant psychiatrist does not prevent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 47
Parties
Applicant: Health Service Executive; Respondent/representative of the Ward: Ms. Aileen Curry (Independent Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Section 108 Review Under the Assisted Decision Making (capacity) Act 2015 (as Amended) and Associated Wardship Review / High Court Judgment on Statutory Interpretation and Continuation of Orders
Outcome
Section 108 review conducted; no order made under Section 108; existing orders continued under wardship jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Detention of Wards, Capacity and Best Interests, Jurisdiction of Wardship Court, Interpretation of Section 108 ADMCA, Procedural Safeguards for Detained Persons
Mental Health Law Wardship Statutory Interpretation Human Rights Detention of Wards Capacity and Best Interests Jurisdiction of Wardship Court Interpretation of Section 108 ADMCA +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Service Executive

Applicant

Ms. Aileen Curry (Independent Solicitor)

Respondent/representative of the Ward

Procedural Posture

Section 108 Review Under the Assisted Decision Making (capacity) Act 2015 (as Amended) and Associated Wardship Review / High Court Judgment on Statutory Interpretation and Continuation of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Section 108(1) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 require a review of detention orders for all wards detained in non-approved centres, regardless of mental disorder diagnosis or presence of a responsible consultant psychiatrist?
  2. 2 Can the court conduct a Section 108 review in the absence of a responsible consultant psychiatrist?
  3. 3 What is the correct interpretation of 'no longer suffering from a mental disorder' in Section 108(4)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 108(1) of the ADMCA requires the court to review the detention order of any ward detained in a non-approved centre at the time of commencement, regardless of whether the ward has a mental disorder or a responsible consultant psychiatrist. The absence of a responsible consultant psychiatrist does not prevent the court from conducting the review. However, as the ward is not suffering from a mental disorder and never has, the court cannot continue the detention under Section 108(2) nor order discharge under Section 108(4). The court retains and exercises its wardship jurisdiction to continue the existing orders in the ward's best interests.

Court Disposition

Section 108 review conducted; no order made under Section 108; existing orders continued under wardship jurisdiction.

Orders

  • No order made on foot of Section 108 review.
  • Existing orders (including detention and restrictive orders) continued under wardship jurisdiction as vested by Section 9 of the 1961 Act and Section 56(2) ADMCA.