The Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights, School of Law, University College Cork and Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association held their 2018 conference on Mental Health Law and Capacity Law in UCC on Saturday 12 May 2018.
Topics discussed included Recent Developments in Mental Health Law, Dealing with Capacity Issues in Practice, and Children and the Mental Health Act 2001.
Ms Katharine Kelleher, Partner, Comyn Kelleher Tobin, Solicitors, Cork, spoke on ‘Section 25 Mental Health Act 2001 in practice from a legal perspective'. Ms Kelleher outlined how children with mental disorders are detained in approved centres by the District Court. She discussed the evidence required at these court hearings and issues such as what happens when the children reach the age of 18.
Ms Freda McKittrick, Head of Barnardos Guardian ad Litem Service: ‘Catching or Falling? The experience of working with children in the Mental Health and Child Care Systems’.
In this paper, Ms McKittrick outlined what works for children with mental health issues: continuity of service, structural integration of services, and where services are well established and prepared to manage risk.
Dr Anne Jeffers, Consultant Psychiatrist, spoke about the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland REFOCUS Group. REFOCUS is the Recovery Experience Forum of Carers and Users of Services. REFOCUS is made up of 10 people with experience of mental illness, and ten people who had family members who used the services. The aim of the forum is to actively engage with the College of Psychiatrists, in order to improve the education of psychiatrists, and thereby improve mental health services.
Dr Lisa Butterly, Historian: ‘A Jury of My Peers’.
Dr Butterly said she feels resentful of how poorly Ireland treats people with schizophrenia. She highlighted the stigma attached to schizophrenia and noted that stigma bypasses self-determination, destroys self-esteem and destroys self-identity.
Ms Brid Breathnach, Deputy Official Solicitor and Senior Civil Litigation Lawyer, Office of the Official Solicitor, London: ‘Serious medical treatment applications in the Court of Protection in England and Wales - a practitioner's perspective’:
Ms Breathnach said that the use of independent experts was an important safeguard in medical treatment cases. She spoke about recent cases in the Court of Protection, including cases concerning termination of pregnancy and persons in a vegetative state.
Mr Michael Lynn, Senior Counsel: ‘Recent Developments in Mental Health Law’:
Mr Lynn discussed important cases such as A.B. v. Clinical Director of St. Loman’s Hospital,
Court of Appeal, 2018, where the court declared that s.15(3) of the Mental Health Act 2001 is unconstitutional. The declaration stands suspended until November 2018.
Ms Áine Hynes, Partner, St. John Solicitors, Dublin: ‘Dealing with Capacity Issues in Practice - Recent Developments’:
Ms Hynes discussed how the High Court's wardship jurisdiction has become more flexible in recent years. She also noted that a solicitor has a special duty of care in respect of vulnerable clients, and that a family member cannot give instructions to a solicitor for another family member lacking in mental capacity.
The conveners of the conference were Dr Darius Whelan, School of Law, UCC and Ms Joan Doran, Solicitor, Chairperson of the Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association.
Videos and slides from the conference are available at
https://www.ucc.ie/academic/law/docs/mentalhealth/conferences/
Updates on Irish and Northern Irish Law (Darius Whelan, School of Law, University College Cork)
Showing posts with label Mental Health Act 2001. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mental Health Act 2001. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Reforming the Mental Health Act 2001
The Report of the Expert Group on the Review of the Mental Health Act 2001 has been published today. The press release is here. The full report is available here. For reaction from Mental Health Reform and Amnesty International Ireland see here. There has been media coverage in the Irish Times, Irish Examiner and on Morning Ireland (interview with Kathleen Lynch). As I have meetings and classes today I cannot write a proper blog post yet.
However, here are some of my tweets. For more see http://twitter.com/dariuswirl
Darius Whelan retweeted
Katherine Wade @kathwade
1/1 Guiding principles in Mental Health Act Review are CRC-based with ref to Art 12 and need for consultation and individual care plans.
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
New mental health leg. to change how people interact with services - @KathleenLynchTD on @morningireland (audio) http://bit.ly/1zNG3uN
Darius Whelan retweeted
Katherine Wade @kathwade · Children to have separate guiding principles and presumption of capacity to refuse admission/treatment http://bit.ly/1wJg112 #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Press Release - Minister Lynch publishes Expert Group Review of the Mental Health Act, 2001 #MentalHealth http://bit.ly/1zNzvMx
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: S.73 should be repealed - (requires permission of the Court before instituting civil proceedings under the Act) #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: Introduction of legislation for advance healthcare directives which should apply to mental health equally with general health
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: Appeal to Circuit Court - onus of proof re mental illness should lie with approved centre rather than person detained
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: Mechanism to allow information in relation to decisions of Review Boards to be published in anonymised form needed #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: Full proposals on ECT. Can continue without consent in limited circumstances #mentalhealth
Embedded image
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: Children to have a stand-alone section of the Mental Health Act with child appropriate guiding principles #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: New intermediate patients - people who may not warrant detention but do not have the capacity to give informed consent - safeguards
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Group: Key decisions such as admission of involuntary patients should involve assessment by at least two Mental Health Professionals.
Darius Whelan retweeted
MHReform @MHReform · 2h 2 hours ago
Reaction frm @AmnestyIreland & @MHReform to publication of #MentalHealthAct review report: http://bit.ly/1ALBvVT @morningireland @TodaySOR
Renewal Orders will be for 3 or 6 months only – 12 month orders will no longer be possible. #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Mental Health Tribunals (renamed Mental Health Review Boards) will review detention after 14 days rather than 21 days #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl · Group proposes ECT without consent only in limited circumstances - and must be approved by a Mental Health Review Board #mentalhealth
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl ·
Will tweet some points from report of Expert Group on Mental Health Act 2001 (full text received via @juneshannon - thanks!)
Darius Whelan @dariuswirl
Fast track for laws to ban shock therapy #mentalhealth http:// http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fast-track-for-laws-to-ban-shock-therapy-316085.html#.VPgHNMvZ3b0.twitter …
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Mental Health, Criminal Law and Risk of Harm
![]() |
| Website of the Central Mental Hospital |
This is a complex area and further details may be found in some of the source materials referred to at the end of this blog post.
The Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 introduced major changes in Irish law concerning mental health and criminal law. For example, it changed the verdict in some of these cases from 'guilty but insane' to 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. In order for such a verdict to be reached, the Act requires the following:
(a) the accused person was suffering at the time from a mental disorder, and
(b) the mental disorder was such that the accused person ought not to be held responsible for the act alleged by reason of the fact that he or she—
(i) did not know the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong, or
(iii) was unable to refrain from committing the act,
the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall return a special verdict to the effect that the accused person is not guilty by reason of insanity.
According to media reports in this case, it appears that such a verdict was returned regarding this individual (Mr Michael Greaney) in 2013.
Under the 2006 Act, if such a verdict is returned, the judge does not automatically send the person for mental health treatment. Instead, the person may be sent to the Central Mental Hospital (CMH) for assessment to see if the person requires treatment. The emphasis switches at this stage from the person's mental health on the day of the act to their health at the time of assessment. A person's mental health may fluctuate enormously from month to month (or even from day to day).
Depending on the assessment, the judge can then either order that the person be detained in the Central Mental Hospital or discharged. In this case, it appears that the judge ordered that the person be discharged, on condition that he live away from the family home. That condition was later lifted by the court.
If the judge ordered that the person be detained at the Central Mental Hospital, the question of the person's release would be in the hands of the independent Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board. This board has 4 members (listed here) and usually 3 members sit on a hearing to review a particular case. There are approximately 110 hearings per year. Each case is reviewed every six months and the person will be represented by a solicitor. A person could also be temporarily released by the CMH under s.14 of the 2006 Act (which does not require approval by the Review Board).
A decision made by a judge to release a person (or to put it another way, not to order that they be treated in the CMH) would be made based on psychiatric evidence of the risk they pose at the time of the assessment. Assessment of risk is a difficult matter and it is impossible to predict risk of harm with high levels of accuracy. As a society, it is important that we strike a fair balance between detaining those who may pose a risk to the community and recognising that a person with significant mental health issues may not have been criminally responsible for their actions. The current law attempts to strike that balance as best it can, with advice from medical experts. This law is in fact of need of reform to strengthen the rights of the individuals concerned, e.g. there is a need for more frequent reviews of detention by the Review Board as the cases of those detained under the civil legislation - the Mental Health Act 2001 - are reviewed more frequently. The law also urgently needs to be changed to remove the "insanity" label from such individuals, a label which is entirely inappropriate and anachronistic.
Source Materials
Barry Roche - Irish Times coverage
Muiris Houston in Irish Times
Ralph Rigel - Irish Independent coverage
Irish Examiner coverage
T.J. McIntyre, Sinead McMullan & Seán Ó Toghda, Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (Dublin: Round Hall, 2012)
Darius Whelan, Mental Health Law and Practice: Civil and Criminal Aspects (Dublin: Round Hall, 2009)
Liz Campbell, Shane Kilcommins & Catherine O'Sullivan, Criminal Law in Ireland: Cases and Commentary (Dublin: Clarus Press, 2010)
Darius Whelan, annotations of Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 and 2010, available in Westlaw IE database
Citizens' Information - Criminal Insanity and Mental Health
Website of Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board
Full text of Criminal Law Insanity (Act) 2006 as amended by Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2010
Darius Whelan, slides on Criminal Law (Insanity) legislation
Mental Health Commission, Forensic Mental Health Services for Adults in Ireland, Position Paper, 2011
Mental Health Reform submission
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


