Irish High Court considers the compatibility of mental health procedures with the Constitution and the ECHR; UK Supreme Court examines "conditions of excessive scrutiny" mental health legislation

Mr Justice MacMenamin recently delivered a significant judgment in the High Court concerning consent procedures in Irish mental health legislation. The case of MX v Health Service Executive concerned the non consensual medical treatment of a patient (MX) in the Central Mental Hospital.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of Section 57 of the Mental Health Act 2001 and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The section provides for the non-consensual medical treatment of an involuntary patient. 

Judge MacMenamin stated “the invasive nature of the treatment results in a loss of bodily integrity and dignity” and the serious nature of the interference required adequate procedural safeguards. He found that these safeguards exist and are provided for in section 60 of the Mental Health Act 2001 which requires a second opinion from an independent consultant in relation to the proposed treatment.

The applicant argued that Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) was directly applicable under the EU legal order following its ratification by the European Union, even though Ireland has not yet ratified the Convention. Judge MacMenamin rejected this argument but acknowledged that that the CRPD provides guidance in relation to issues of legal capacity.

The Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) who appeared as amicus curiae (or ‘friend of the court’) welcomed the judgment as “a strong safeguard against unwarranted intrusion into the autonomy rights of persons with disabilities”.  Although Judge MacMenamin did not find that MX's rights had been breached under the Constitution or the ECHR, he made important observations on the Constitutional rights of people in mental health detention and also the applicability of the CRPD in Ireland.

Please click here to read judgment in full.

Click here for the IHRC’s Press Release.

Click here to read an article from the Irish Human Rights Blog.

Meanwhile in other news, the UK Supreme Court in RM v The Scottish Ministers unanimously allowed the appeal of a patient who had been compulsorily detained in a non-state hospital to receive a declaration that he was detained in conditions of excessive scrutiny. 

The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 gives patients who are detained in state hospitals the right to apply to the Scottish Mental Health Tribunal for such a declaration. The Act purports to give the same right to patients detained in non-state hospitals who meet certain qualifying criteria. The Minister had failed to lay down regulations to identify qualifying criteria and the applicant was therefore prevented from applying for a declaration under the Act. 

The Court held that the Ministers' failure to make regulations under the Act was unlawful as it was contrary to the intention of the Scottish Parliament.

Please click here to read the judgment

Click here to read a blog article on the case and another.

Share

Resources

Sustaining Partners