JR 45's application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NIQB 17 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Docket Number | QBD; McCL8107 |
| Date | 03 March 2011 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NIQB 17 Ref:
McCL8107
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
03/03/11
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
JR 45 application [2011] NIQB 17
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JR 45
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
McCLOSKEY J
Anonymity
This judgment has been formulated in a manner designed to protect the anonymity
of the Applicant and another person. Following representations from the parties at
the outset of the proceedings, the protection of anonymity was granted, for three
reasons. The first is that the Applicant is a detained mental health patient. The
second is the court’s assessment that, having regard to the description of the
Applicant’s condition and the symptoms thereof, the dissemination of this judgment
without anonymisation could conceivably be detrimental to his treatment and
recovery. The third is that there is an entirely innocent third party involved in the
relevant factual matrix. There is no conceivable reason why this person’s identity
should be published or become known to the potentially wide audience which can
be reached by judgments of the High Court. If the Applicant were not anonymised,
this would create a real risk of identification of the innocent third party. No step
should be taken by anyone which might have the consequence of identifying the
Applicant or the third party concerned, who is described as “XY” throughout this
judgment and in the edited papers.
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Applicant is a detained patient. By this application for judicial review, he
challenges a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), dated
29th October 2010, dismissing his application for discharge from detention. The
effect of the court’s ruling at the permission stage is to confine the Applicant’s case
to a single ground, namely that the impugned decision is vitiated by error of law. In
the context of these proceedings, this requires the court to determine whether the
Tribunal correctly construed and applied the statutory provisions in play.
2
II STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
[2] The relevant statutory provisions are contained in the Mental Health
(Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (“the 1986 Order”), as amended. Two particular
provisions of this Order in Council arise for consideration. The first is Article 77(1),
which empowers the tribunal to discharge patients other than restricted patients.
This provides :
“Power to discharge patients other than restricted
patients
77 [(1) Where application is made to the Review Tribunal
by or in respect of a patient who is liable to be detained
under this Order, the tribunal may in any case direct that
the patient be discharged, and shall so direct if—
(a) the tribunal is not satisfied that he is then suffering
from mental illness or severe mental impairment or
from either of those forms of mental disorder of a
nature or degree which warrants his detention in
hospital for medical treatment; or
(b) the tribunal is not satisfied that his discharge would
create a substantial likelihood of serious physical
harm to himself or to other persons; or
(c) in the case of an application by virtue of Article
71(4)(a) in respect of a report furnished under
Article 14(4)(b), the tribunal is satisfied that he
would, if discharged, receive proper care.]
A tribunal may under paragraph (1) direct the discharge of
a patient on a future date specified in the direction; and
where the tribunal does not direct the discharge of a patient
under that paragraph the tribunal may—
(a) with a view to facilitating his discharge on a future
date, recommend that he be granted leave of absence
or transferred to another hospital or into
guardianship; and
(b) further consider his case in the event of any such
recommendation not being complied with.
(3) Where application is made to the Review Tribunal
by or in respect of a patient who is subject to guardianship
under this Order, the tribunal may in any case direct that
the patient be discharged, and shall so direct if it is
satisfied—
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
A Police Officer’s Application (Leave Stage)
...the balance in favour of anonymity. The learned judge noted that this court had adopted a similar approach in Re JR 45’s Application [2011] NIQB 17, which also concerned a detained mental patient. [12] It is instructive to consider the approach adopted when issues of this kind arise in proc......
-
ELM's Application by her Mother and Next Friend
...the court was referred to the decision of McCloskey J (as he then was) in In the Matter of an Application by JR45 for Judicial Review [2011] NIQB 17 (paragraph 20) … “A replying affidavit will not be unexpected, if there are issues or areas of contention between the parties. A replying affi......
-
X (acting by his next friend Y) v The Mental Health Review Tribunal for NI and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust
...I also refer to CPR 39, White Book 2001 Volume 1 commentary at 39.2.1 together with the decision of McCloskey J in JR 45’s application [2011] NIQB 17. I have balanced the Article 8 rights of X and the Article 6 obligations on this court. The applicant has been a detained mental health patie......
-
SC’s Application
...their decision are sufficient to pass the threshold of illegality. The Applicant submits that on application of R (Nash)UNK1 and JR 45MHLR[2014 MHLR 273 the inadequacy of the reason is sufficient to render the decision of the MHRT illegal. [28] The Applicant further submits that even if the......
Request a trial to view additional results