In the matter of an application by Brian McGee for Judicial Review
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Girvan LJ |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] NICA 38 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 16 October 2007 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2007] NICA 38 Ref:
GIRF5942
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
16/10/07
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN
IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BRIAN McGEE FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
GIRVAN LJ
[1] The appellant Brian McGee suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. He
has been detained in a mental hospital on a number of occasions from 2001
onwards in connection with his condition. On 28 December 2005 he was
admitted to Gransha Hospital, County Londonderry and detained there
pursuant to an application for assessment under Article 9 of the Mental
Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (“the 1986 Order”). From 10 January
2006 he was detained for treatment under Article 12 of the 1986 Order. He
made an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in
January 2006. The Tribunal heard his application on 3 March 2006. Following
the hearing it decided that his mental illness was not of a degree that
warranted his continued detention and it was not satisfied that his discharge
would create a substantial likelihood of serious physical harm to himself or
others. It accordingly ordered his release. The Tribunal’s written decision
was reached and signed on 3 March 2006 after the conclusion of the hearing
and it sent a copy of the decision to the Foyle Health and Social Service Trust
(“the Trust”) which was in charge of the appellant’s treatment. The Trust
received the decision on 6 March 2006.
[2] In the view of Dr O’Hara, the consultant psychiatrist in charge of the
appellant’s case, formed prior to the Tribunal’s decision, the appellant would
benefit from a period of home leave during the weekend of 4-6 March. The
appellant was thus permitted to go home to his mother’s home during that
To continue reading
Request your trial