A MAN who stabbed three psychiatric nurses, one almost fatally, at his home three years ago has lost his Supreme Court action challenging the legislation under which he was detained in a psychiatric hospital.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the court was satisfied that it had not been established that the provisions of the 1945 Mental Treatment Act constituted a failure by the Oireachtas to respect and, as far as practicable, defend and vindicate the personal rights of citizens affected.
Mr Sean Croke (40), with and dress in Artane, Dublin, was diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness in the early 1980s. He led a fairly normal life with parental support and had been gainfully employed.
His illness was treated with low doses of medication and three temporary admissions to St Ita's Hospital, Portrane, Co Dublin.
On July 7th, 1993, he was unwilling to submit to electro convulsive therapy (ECT), left St Ita's and returned to his parents home.
Two days later, a party of nurses was sent to bring Mr Croke back. Being unwilling to undergo ECT he shut himself in bedroom. When the psychiatric nurses broke into his room violently resisted arrest and stabbed three of them, one nearly fatally. He was arrested by gardai and transferred to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, for "special treatment".
On July 14th, 1994, the Supreme Court ordered his release because he had been detained in excess of the six month period authorised by the original reception order. But that same day a garda called to his parents' home and took him to St Ita's.
The medical director made a reception order and Mr Croke was detained under Section 172 of the 1945 Mental Treatment Act.
The matter came before the High Court last year when Mr Justice Budd found Section 172 was unconstitutional and stated a case to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
The section in question provides that where a "chargeable patient reception order" was made, a person could be detained "until his removal or discharge by proper authority or his death".
In his judgment, Mr Justice Hamilton said provision was made in the Constitution for the High Court to refer the question of the validity of the law under - which a person is detained.
It appeared from Mr Justice Budd's decision on behalf of Mr Croke submitted that the certain provisions of the act were unconstitutional due to the lack of judicial or quasi judicial intervention prior to the reception and detention of a patient.
Mr Justice Hamilton said the court was satisfied that Section 171 of the Act was not part of the administration of justice and did not require a judicial inquiry of determination.