Court orders inquiry into claim of unfair detention

The High Court has ordered an inquiry into the legality of the detention of a woman who claims she was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital while in Scotland and then escorted by that hospital's staff to Ireland last February where she was again involuntarily detained in another psychiatric hospital.

As a result of involuntary treatment, the woman claims she can no longer walk unaided.

Mr Justice Geoghegan yesterday granted an application by Mr Antony Sammon SC, for the woman, a qualified but non-practising solicitor, for an Article 40 inquiry into her detention. He returned the matter to Monday.

Mr Sammon said the grave point in the case was that two orders for the woman's detention had been made. One purported to authorise her detention for six months from February 19th last while the second authorised detention from March 24th last.

He said it appeared the second order came into being after the woman set about inquiring into the basis for her detention and as a kind of amendment of the first order. If so, it was an improper amendment of the first order.

In an affidavit, the woman said she had attended voluntarily for psychiatric treatment at two psychiatric hospitals, including the hospital where she is detained.

Prior to February last, she had never been detained involuntarily in any psychiatric institution, the woman said. But she was at present being involuntarily detained and treated. Since February 19th, she said her treatment has consisted of injections of medication which substantially impaired control and movement of her legs to the extent she cannot now walk unaided.

At no time was she informed of the legal basis for her detention, the woman said. Neither was she advised of her entitlement to seek a second medical opinion or to take legal advice.

When she had made a written request for particulars of her committal in letters of March 7th and 14th last, she received no reply from the hospital for more than two weeks. She was advised a reply on March 22nd was incomplete and misleading as to her legal and statutory entitlements.

Notwithstanding the assertion by the hospital manager that the temporary order grounding her detention was made in accordance with the Mental Treatment Act 1945 and that she had a right to appeal to the Inspector of Mental Hospitals, it was clear the hospital's medical director felt obliged to take further steps to validate purportedly her detention in that a fresh committal order was made on March 24th last, she said.

At no time was she informed it was proposed to make such an order nor was she aware of it until advised by her solicitor.

The woman said she had instructed solicitors to act on her behalf and when her solicitor, Mr Dara Robinson, asked for documents purporting to validate her detention he was given two separate orders of February 19th and March 24th.

She believed she was at present in unlawful detention, the woman said. There was uncertainty surrounding both the basis for her detention and the length of that detention. Both orders regarding her detention had also come into being when she was already detained.

She said the Mental Treatment Act 1945 contemplated that the procedure for admitting a person to hospital should commence when the person is at liberty. There was also no provision in Irish law for receiving a psychiatric patient from a foreign jurisdiction with a view to detaining her in an Irish psychiatric institution, she added.