Man to be made ward of court despite his opposition

A jury has found that a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia should be placed under the protection of the High Court, despite his opposition to being made a ward of court.

Three psychiatrists had told the court they considered the man a danger to himself and others.

The court also heard the man had had a difficult upbringing involving psychological, emotional and sexual abuse, and had been in care for a number of years.

Asked by his counsel about the evidence of the three psychiatrists, the man said: “I am able to look after myself.”

He added: “I want to do my own thing.”

The HSE had applied for the man to be made a ward of court but, because he signalled opposition to such a move, a jury trial was ordered to decide the issue.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, said on Wednesday that he would deal with the consequences of the jury’s decision next week.

Earlier, the judge, in response to a question from the jury’s foreman, said wardship was not permanent and there had been a number of cases where people with mental illness had recovered and been discharged from wardship.

The jury found the man was a person of unsound mind and incapable of looking after his personal property.

‘Chaotic lifestyle’

The man, whose main family tie is to his seriously-ill father, also has a borderline personality disorder. When he previously lived on his own in a city apartment, he had a chaotic lifestyle and abused a number of substances, the court was told.

The man is now living in a sheltered facility with round-the-clock carers. Due to relapses and assaults, including on his carers, he has been transferred on occasion temporarily to a secure mental-health facility.

He self-harms and on a number of occasions has attempted to take his own life, the court heard.

A psychiatrist who is lead clinician in the man’s treatment said a key symptom of the man’s condition includes a delusion that people around him, including those who care for him, were trying to harm him through food and other means.

The court heard the man’s days in sheltered accommodation involved at least one member of staff accompanying him at all times, whether to the post office to collect his money or on outings to nearby towns.