THE HIGH Court has reserved judgment on a challenge by a woman with a long history of mental illness to an order under which she remains detained against her will in a Dublin psychiatric hospital.
The case has significant implications for current practices relating to the making of orders relating to the detention of people in psychiatric hospitals.
The woman has claimed her doctors believe she would fare best in supported accommodation outside hospital and that she remains detained against her will in St Patrick's Hospital in Dublin because there is no supported accommodation available for her.
The woman wants the court to overturn a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal affirming a renewal order of May last providing for her involuntary detention for a further period "not exceeding" 12 months.
The woman says the only reason she is in hospital is because the HSE is failing to provide adequate supported accommodation.
While renewal orders under Section 15 of the Mental Health Act 2001 authorise detention for periods "not exceeding" three, six and 12 months, it is claimed the current practice is that persons are being detained until just before those maximum periods expire, regardless of whether such periods of detention are in the patient's best interests. This practice militates against timely reviews of detentions, it is claimed.
The woman's judicial review proceedings are against the Mental Health Commission, the Mental Health Tribunal and the clinical director of St Patrick's Hospital in Dublin where the woman remains involuntarily detained. She has been in involuntary detention since August 2007 and has had multiple hospital admissions since she was 19-years-old.
The Attorney General and the Human Rights Commission are notice parties to the proceedings which concluded yesterday before Mr Justice Bryan McMahon, who said he hoped to give judgment next week.
In submissions, the Attorney General has said the order under which the woman is being detained should be upheld by the court, but has also said it is open to doctors to set a specific date for the expiry of a detention under such orders.
Counsel for the hospital Pauline Walley SC said the hospital was acting in the best interest of the woman at all times and her detention was under constant review.
The Mental Health Commission and Mental Health Tribunal say the woman has had her detention reviewed four times by the tribunal since August 2007.
They argue Section 15 must be implied to be constitutional and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to fix the duration of the renewal order relating to the woman.