MH and The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Horner J |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] NIQB 87 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Docket Number | HOR9307 |
| Date | 24 April 2014 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2014] NIQB 87 Ref: HOR9307
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 24/06/14
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
Between
MH
Applicant
and
THE MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Respondent
________
HORNER J
Index
(i) Summary Paras 1-3
(ii) Introduction Paras 4-7
(iii) Background Facts Paras 8-16
(iv) Relevant Legislative Provisions Paras 17-24
(v) Evidence Before MHRT Paras 25-27
(vi) Decision of MHRT Paras 28-29
(vii) Issue 1 Paras 30-31
(viii) Issue 2 Paras 32-34
(ix) Delay and alternative Remedy Paras 35-40
2
Summary
[1] The applicant, MH, a paranoid schizophrenic, was detained under the Mental
Health (NI) Order 1986 (“the Order”) after he had attacked Dr X, a consultant
psychiatrist while driven by his paranoid psychotic ideation. He was detained in
hospital under Article 77 of the Order following a decision of the MHRT on 3 May
2013. The President was Ms Ruth Lavery.
[2] The applicant’s detention was considered by a differently constituted MHRT
presided over by Mr Fraser Elliott QC on 6 and 22 November 2013. It gave its
decision on 26 November 2013. The applicant has challenged this decision on a
number of grounds. The two advanced at the hearing were:
(i) The approach of the MHRT was unlawful and that the MHRT had not
adopted the narrow focused based approach required under Article 77(1) and
Article 2(4) of the Order and,
(ii) The MHRT had misunderstood the meaning of “discharge” and had failed to
take into account the applicant’s stated intention which was to remain in
hospital as a voluntary patient if discharged from detention.
The court rejects both these challenges. The approach of the MHRT had been within
the strict confines of Article 77 and 2(4) of the Order. Further, although the MHRT
did not expressly find that the applicant would leave hospital if discharged from
detention, this was the overwhelming evidence before the MHRT. No person could
have been in any doubt. Indeed, if on the evidence, the MHRT had reached a
different conclusion then that conclusion would have been wholly unreasonable in
the light of all the evidence before it.
[3] The court granted leave for the judicial review application so that the merits of
the 2 issues raised by the applicant could be considered. However, in light of the
findings of the court, it would have refused to grant relief because an application
could have been made to the MHRT in March 2014 seeking a discharge from
detention. No application was made. Furthermore, if the case had been remitted to a
differently constituted MHRT, the new tribunal on the evidence before the original
tribunal, would have been bound to conclude that the applicant should continue to
be detained pursuant to the Order.
Introduction
[4] The applicant MH seeks leave for judicial review and relief arising out of the
decision made by the MHRT which ordered the applicant to remain in detention
under the Order. It was agreed by both parties that this would be a “rolled up”
hearing. The MHRT had been required to make a determination in accordance with
Article 77(1) of the Order once the applicant made an application to be discharged
from his detention in hospital. The MHRT consisted of three members, one of whom
To continue reading
Request your trial