The Irish Supreme Court has found a mentally ill man, who was convicted of crimes and detained in the Central Mental Hospital (CMH), was lawfully made a ward of court just days before his sentence was due to end. The man lost his appeal as it was regarded as “necessary” to detain him under the court’s wardship jurisdiction.
The man, AM, had a delusional disorder which caused him to have paranoid beliefs. In 2001 he was charged with the murder of a homeless man and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. This was subsequently reduced to seven years on appeal and he was released in 2007. In 2008, AM attended a local hospital complaining of stress. He was not satisfied with the advice from the psychiatrist and psychologist and as a result stabbed them. He was arrested and transferred from Limerick Prison to the CMH. In 2009, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for assault causing serious harm, along with a three year concurrent sentence. A plea of insanity was not raised, however AM remained in the CMH.
In November 2016, the HSE brought an ex parte application to make AM a ward of court as he posed a serious threat to his own life and welfare, and that of others. Evidence suggested that AM suffered from a ‘mental disorder’ as defined by section 1 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2016, as well as under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 2001. It further established that he also met the criteria to be made a ward of court. Counsel for AM accepted that detention was appropriate but argued that his rights would be better served under the Mental Health Acts. As AM was due to be released in 4 days, Justice Peter Kelly in the High Court granted the ward of court application and ordered his continued detention in the CMH.
AM appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that he had satisfied the criteria for admission to the CMH under Mental Health Act 2001, and therefore detention could only be made pursuant to that legal mechanism.
Justice John MacMenamin in the Supreme Court stated the 2001 Act and wardship have separate purposes and operate separately, but can also be mutually exclusive. While the orders may not be made simultaneously, Justice MacMenamin was of the view that there was nothing to prevent mirror orders to protect rights being made in the exercise of the wardship jurisdiction.
The Court found no evidence to suggest that the HSE tried to circumvent the 2001 Act in an unlawful way or acted mala fides in its application to make AM a ward of court. The HSE’s application in late 2016 left Justice Kelly in an “invidious” position where he had little choice other than to grant the order sought. Just McMenamin further stated that the essential safeguards and protections were no less than if AM had been admitted to the CMH under the Mental Health Acts.
Click here for the decision in AM v HSE.