Updates on Irish and Northern Irish Law (Darius Whelan, School of Law, University College Cork)
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Mental Health and Capacity Law Conference 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/
Monday, April 16, 2018
Save the Date: Mental Health and Capacity Law Conference 2018
Conference programme will be published shortly, once finalised.
Speakers will include:
- 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’
- Mr Michael Lynn, Senior Counsel: ‘Recent Developments in Mental Health Law’
- Dr Lisa Butterly, Historian: ‘A Jury of My Peers’
- Dr Anne Jeffers, Consultant Psychiatrist: ‘Learning from the Patient: Experience with the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland REFOCUS Group’
- Ms Katherine Kelleher, Partner, Comyn Kelleher Tobin, Solicitors, Cork: 'S 25 Mental Health Act 2001 in practice from a legal perspective'
- 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 Patricia Hickey, General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court
- Ms Áine Hynes, Partner, St. John Solicitors, Dublin: ‘Dealing with Capacity Issues in Practice - Recent Developments’
- Conference Fee - €120
- NGOs €50
- Academics - €50
- Devilling barristers and trainee solicitors - €50
- Students – Free
Further Information from Ms Deirdre Kelleher, School of Law, UCC, phone (021) 490 3642, email lawevents@ucc.ie.
Four CPD Hours – Solicitors and Barristers
College of Psychiatrists of Ireland - 3.5 external CPD Credits.
Book Online
Twitter hashtag: #IMHLAUCC
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Legal Capacity Conference, UCC, Saturday 9 April 2016
Centre for Criminal Justice & Human Rights, School of Law, University College Cork and
Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association
Legal Capacity Conference 2016
Saturday 9 April 2016
10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.
Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, Room G10
University College Cork
Speakers and chairs include:
- Professor Peter Bartlett, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Professor of Mental Health Law, University of Nottingham
- Ms Louise Loughlin, National Manager, National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities
- Dr Alan Corkery, Consultant Psychiatrist in Rehabilitation Psychiatry, North Cork Mental Health Services
- Professor Mary Donnelly, School of Law, University College Cork
- Ms Áine Hynes, Partner, St. John Solicitors
Conference Convenors:
Dr Darius Whelan, School of Law, UCC and Ms Joan Doran, Solicitor, Chair, Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association
- Conference Fee - €80
- NGOs €30
- Academics - €30
- Devilling barristers and trainee solicitors - €30
- Full-time students – Free
- UCC Staff – No charge
Further Information from Ms Noreen Delea, Events Manager, School of Law, UCC, tel: (021) 4903220, email n.delea@ucc.ie.
Four CPD Hours available
http://imhla.ie/events/2016/3/10/ucc-09april2016
Link to book online:
http://www.uccconferencing.ie/product/legal-capacity-conference-2016/
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Reforming the Mental Health Act 2001

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
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Capacity Bill and Prime Time programme
Cross-posted from Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association:
Implications of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 for Vulnerable Persons in Congregated Settings
Submissions by The Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association on the Assisted Decision–Making (Capacity) Bill were made to the Department of Justice on the 30th of October 2013.
The Prime Time programme aired last night on the treatment of vulnerable persons in the care of the HSE at Áras Attracta highlights the urgent need for the Assisted Decision-Making legislation to be implemented as a matter of urgency. We and other organisations have made submissions in relation to appropriate deprivation of liberty safeguards which we consider should have been included in the Bill. An extract from our submissions are set out below.
We consider that it is necessary at this time, to emphasise that there must be appropriate legal mechanisms in place to ensure there is proper oversight of vulnerable adults in care, who cannot speak for themselves and who are entitled to be afforded their basic human rights. Legal mechanisms such as deprivation of liberty safeguards can serve to shine a light on poor practice and unlawful acts. We also consider that it is of the utmost importance that serious consideration is given to the immediate implementation of the Personal Advocacy Service provisions of the Citizens Information Act 2007.
EXTRACT FROM SUBMISSION
1. Reviews of detention of persons who lack capacity admitted to residential centres other than approved centres.
The Bill does not fully resolve the issue of people who lack capacity and are admitted to a residential centre on a "voluntary" basis but are de facto detained in the centre. This is an issue which arises in residential settings such as nursing homes, social care institutions and centres for people with disabilities. Ireland is not directly tackling the problem of the "Bournewood gap" and ECHR case-law such as H.L. v UK; Stanev v Bulgaria; D.D. v Lithuania and other cases.
Recommendation
The IMHLA recommends that the Bill should state that if a person is being admitted to any residential centre, this can only occur on a voluntary basis, where the person has capacity to consent to such admission and does consent to such admission. Capacity to consent should be assessed appropriately.
Áine Hynes, IMHLA Phone 01 6779097
10 December 2014
Full IMHLA Submission on Bill
Monday, July 14, 2014
Recent mental health news
Maybe a mental health court needed ? > Diversion, which is used in juvenile justice, is needed in District Court http://t.co/spuVB49D4U
— Darius Whelan (@dariuswirl) July 14, 2014
MT @Ukilkelly: Civil & political rights in mental health - Ireland and the Human Rights Committee by @eilionoirflynn http://t.co/KeQli5OTg8
— Darius Whelan (@dariuswirl) July 13, 2014
Young man 'should be in psychiatric hospital, not prison' - court told - Independent.ie http://t.co/SBETr1j8q5 via @sharethis
— Darius Whelan (@dariuswirl) July 10, 2014
TD calls for “fully independent” evaluation of all mental health services in west http://t.co/ePjLmMG5HH via @IrishTimes
— Darius Whelan (@dariuswirl) July 8, 2014
Hospital closures pave way for new mental health premises at Portrane - Independent.ie #mentalhealth http://t.co/W1Ota9XRS8 via @sharethis
— Darius Whelan (@dariuswirl) July 8, 2014
Suspended seven-year term for woman over killing son (8) #diminished #responsbility #mentalhealth http://t.co/WNz0IyFqcT
— Darius Whelan (@dariuswirl) July 8, 2014
Limerick Prison failed to follow its own procedures to watch over a man who took his own life while on suicide watch. http://t.co/kBSW8WJL2j
— Andrew Madden (@andrewmmadden) July 5, 2014
Thursday, August 01, 2013
Ireland's Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013
+Bill+header+image.png)
The new Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 was finally published on 17 July. This Bill has been a long time in development; previously Heads of a Bill had been published in 2008 but this is the first formal Bill published on the topic.
The Bill is a product of the Department of Justice and Equality, while mental health legislation such as the Mental Health Act 2001 is produced by the Department of Health. It is unfortunate that joined up thinking between government Departments is difficult, because at times Departments work in silos without detailed enough reference to each other (and I know, universities are indeed the same).
The Bill has already been the subject of a good deal of summary and commentary, and I include a list of useful links to other blog postings, etc., at the end of this item.
The following main points strike me as the discussion on the Bill commences:
There is no explicit reference to "best interests" and this is a major advance on the 2008 Heads of the Bill. The "best interests" principle has been interpreted in such a paternalistic manner by the Irish courts that it would have been unworkable in the Capacity Bill. What's more, it's out of step with modern thinking on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The CRPD is explicitly recognised in the functions of the Public Guardian (s.56).
It is a real pity that the Bill does not establish multidisciplinary tribunals for dealing with applications regarding lack of capacity, etc. A three-person tribunal similar to the Mental Health Tribunals would be a more suitable forum than the Circuit Court for resolution of these issues.
The Bill does not fully resolve the issue of people who lack capacity and are admitted to a residential centre on a "voluntary" basis but are de facto detained in the centre. This is an issue which arises in the mental health context (and is being addressed by the Steering Group on the Mental Health Act) but also in other residential settings such as nursing homes, social care institutions and centres for people with disabilities. Ireland is not directly tackling the problem of the "Bournewood gap" and ECHR case-law such as H.L. v UK; Stanev v Bulgaria; D.D. v Lithuania and other cases.
The Bill creates forms of substitute decision-making, most clearly with the court appointment of a Decision-Making Representative (ss.23-27). Because of Article 12 of the CRPD (which Ireland has not yet ratified), regimes of substitute decision-making should be avoided as much as possible and this Bill may not go far enough to comply properly with the CRPD (for more detailed critique on this aspect see blog posts by Eilionóir Flynn and Lucy Series).
The Bill does not provide for automatic legal representation in any category of case. Instead, the person will need to apply for legal aid through the civil legal aid legislation. This contrasts sharply with the automatic representation under the Mental Health Act 2001.
The rules on informal decision-making (ss.53-54) need to be much tighter as there is a real danger that these will be abused in practice. The experience with the interpretation of the definition of the word "voluntary" in the Mental Health Act 2001 shows that sections of this kind can have major unintended consequences.
Existing wards of court will not have their cases reviewed for a period which may take as much as three years (see s.35). In the case of children, this period may (in theory) even be longer.
While "welfare" is defined in the Bill to include healthcare decisions for some purposes (see s.25(a)(vii) and s.41(2)(b)) it is unclear if it includes healthcare decisions in other situations.
The Public Guardian will be appointed by the Courts Service (s.55). The Minister for Justice and Equality will need to approve the Office of Public Guardian's codes of practice (s.63(5)). It would be better if the office were renamed to replace the paternalistic word "guardian". In addition, perhaps the office should be on a more independent basis, like an ombudsman or other independent office.
It would be helpful if the Bill included a requirement that the courts provide written reasons for all of their decisions, and that these reasons be published on an anonymised basis. This would provide real transparency for the public, legal practitioners and civil society.
OTHER MATERIAL ON THE BILL
Press release - Department of Justice and Equality - Minister Alan Shatter and Minister Kathleen Lynch
Blog post - Mary Donnelly, UCC
Blog post - Eilionóir Flynn, NUI Galway
Blog post - Lucy Series, NUI Galway
Joint Press Release from Civil Society Organisations
Irish Times Article - John Costello, Consultant at Beauchamps
Press Release from Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association
Press release from NUI Galway’s Centre for Disability Law and Policy
Press Release from Inclusion Ireland
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association seminar - Dublin, 23 July 2012
Venue: Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7
Time: 5.30pm - 8.00pm
Registration and refreshments: 5.30
2 CPD points will be available for attendees
AGENDA
5.30pm Registration - Tea/Coffee/sandwiches
6.00pm Dr. Darius Whelan,
President Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association, Faculty of Law U.C.C.
Daring to Change: The Interim Report of the Steering Group on the Review of the Mental Health Act
6.30pm Fionn Fitzpatrick.
Presentation on need for legislative reform following her own experiences of the mental health services.
6.45pm Mark Felton, Solicitor.
Overview of Proposed Capacity Legislation.
7.00pm Dr. Ciaran Craven B.L.,
Mental Health Act 2001, Capacity and Consent to Treatment cases.
7.40pm Joan Doran, Solicitor.
Operating the Mental Health Act 2001 Act, a practitioner’s viewpoint.
Seminar Registration Form available here:
http://www.irishlaw.org/events/imhla-july-2012.doc
Provisional registration can be made by email to: joan@joandoran.com
Fee: Free to members of IMHLA
€65 to non-members
Cancellations must be received in writing. For cancellations received 5 working days or less prior to the event, the attendance fee is non refundable.
It may be necessary, for reasons beyond the control of the conference organisers, to alter the content and timing of the program or the identity of the speakers.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Time to remove mental health disqualification for TDs
![]() |
Dáil Éireann - CC BY by apanoply |
It is high time that similar restrictions were removed in Ireland. For example, section 41 of the Electoral Act 1992 states that a "person of unsound mind" may not be a member of the Dáil.
This section has not been repealed.
(By the way, this is also the section which bans undischarged bankrupts or those undergoing a sentence of 6 months or more).
In January 2010, John Moloney TD, then Minister of State for Mental Health and Disability, said that he had written to the Minister for the Environment asking that the relevant restriction on membership of the Dáil be repealed (see article by Mark Tighe in Sunday Times, 31 January 2010). He also said at the time that he had stress and depression two years previously, forcing him to take four weeks off work. At the time he referred to s.51 of the Electoral Act 1923, but that had been repealed and replaced in 1992.
In a similar vein, the European Court of Human Rights has overturned an absolute bar on voting by any person under partial guardianship, irrespective of his or her actual faculties in Kiss v Hungary (2010).
In 2011, the Venice Commission reversed an anomaly which allowed countries to exclude people with "genuine mental disabilities" from the ballot box. See more at http://www.savethevote.info, a site set up by the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre in Budapest.
See also June Shannon, 'Fears that Dáil rule fuels mental health stigma', Medical Independent, 2 Jun 2011.
[ Dáil Éireann photo - CC BY from Flickr by apanoply ]
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
John Gallagher and mental health law
The Gallagher saga has had major implications for mental health law in Ireland over the years.
Now that he is back in the CMH, his case may well be reviewed by the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board.
Gallagher was found guilty but insane on two murder charges in 1989.
The verdict at the time was governed by the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883.
The 1883 Act was probably in breach of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provided for automatic detention on an insanity verdict and because it failed to provide for reviews of detention. However, the ECHR did not become part of domestic law until 2003. It was reported in 2005 that Eamonn Daly was challenging the compliance of the 1883 Act with the ECHR.
Gallagher brought various challenges to his detention in the Central Mental Hospital. In Application of Gallagher (No.2) (1996) the High Court found that he no longer had a mental disorder but had a personality disorder. The court upheld his continuing detention on the basis of a personality disorder, and in spite of lengthy ministerial delays in acting on recommendations of a non-statutory review committee.
The court emphasised that he could not be detained on grounds of risk alone as this would be preventative detention.
The Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 established the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board.
This board has three members and reviews the detention of those detained on insanity verdicts, even if their trials took place prior to 2006. Reviews take place every six months.
The board has various powers, e.g. to order that the person be released or conditionally discharged.
If the person was conditionally discharged (from 2006 to 2010), the Board did not have the power to recall them if they broke the conditions of their discharge. As a result, the Board had a policy of never ordering a conditional discharge.
There were two High Court cases concerning the powers of the Review Board - J.B. v Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board [2008] IEHC 303; High Court, Hanna J., July 25, 2008 - www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2008/H303.html - and L. v Kennedy [2010] I.E.H.C. 195 High Court, Peart J., May 5, 2010 http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H195.html.
In L. v Kennedy, Peart J. did not order that Mr. L. be released (as the case was a habeas corpus application under article 40.4 of the Constitution) but hinted that if it had been a judicial review case he might have quashed the review board's decision.
The two cases rely heavily on Johnson v UK, an ECHR case. However, it is arguable that they fail to focus adequately on the delay aspect of the Johnson case. In addition, there is little discussion of the Irish constitutional principle against preventative detention.
The 2006 Act was amended by the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2010, which provides a power of recall if a patient discharged conditionally breaches the conditions.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Mental Health Courts
This is the abstract:
At present, if people with mental disorders appear before the criminal courts in Ireland, unless they are unfit for trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, the system governing their case will be the general one which applies to all criminal cases. In recent decades, a number of other common law jurisdictions have begun to set up mental health courts as a means of diverting some people with mental disorders from the criminal justice system and into more appropriate treatment.
This article begins with a review of the background to mental health courts, focusing on the concept of diversion from the criminal justice system and the role of Therapeutic Jurisprudence theory as an inspiration for the establishment of mental health courts. The main features of mental health courts are identified and the features of those in existence in the United States are contrasted with those in Canada and England and Wales. Some of the main arguments against the use of these courts will be discussed, including the contentions that defendants' participation may not be truly voluntary and that their due process rights are not adequately protected. The question of whether a mental health court should be established in Ireland is considered.
The full text of the article is available here and the full reference is as follows:
Ryan, Sarah and Whelan, Darius, 'Diversion of Offenders with Mental Disorders: Mental Health Courts' (2012) 1 Web Journal of Current Legal Issues.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association seminar - Dublin, 27 May 2010
Seminar and Launch of Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association website http://www.imhla.org/
Launch of website by Miriam O'Callaghan
Brief Presentations will be given by:
Darius Whelan, Faculty of Law, University College Cork, on Reforming Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law
Ciaran Craven B.L., MB, B.Ch, BAO, B.Sc
Lianna Murphy, Project Officer with the Public Interest Law Alliance (PILA), a project of Flac, on Opportunities for Public Interest Law in Ireland
Date: Thursday 27th May 2010
Venue: Distillery Building, 145-151, Church St., Dublin 7.
Time: 6.00pm
Seminar Fee: Members - 30 euro / Non-Members - 60 euro
CPD points will be awarded for attendance at this Seminar
Name : ...........................................................
Address:..............................................................................................................................................
Telephone:....................................................... Fax:................................................................
email:........................................................................................................................................
Those wishing to attend should complete this Registration Form, and send it to:
Joan Doran Solicitor, 26, Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin 2.
Fax: 01 637 3933 / Email: joan@joandoran.com
http://www.imhla.org/
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Forthcoming Events
Thu.19 Nov.'09:
Mental Health in Prison - Dublin
http://www.iprt.ie/contents/1462
Sat. 21 Nov.'09:
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Making States Accountable - Annual Human Rights Conference of the IHRC and the Law Society of Ireland, Dublin
http://www.ihrc.ie/home/wnarticle.asp?NID=241&T=N&Print=
Wed.25 Nov.'09:
Constitutional Courts and the Lisbon Treaty - ISEL 7th Annual Brian Walsh Memorial Lecture, Dublin
http://www.isel.ie/index.php?option=com_gigcal&Itemid=60
Thu.26 Nov.'09:
ECHR Update: The Recent Use of the ECHR in the Courts, Procedure, Remedies and Analysis - Dublin
http://www.icel.ie/events_currentprogramme.php
Thu.26 Nov.2009:
A Comparatist’s Analysis of the Convergence of Legal Systems - Dublin
http://tinyurl.com/iscl-1
Thu.26 Nov. 2009:
National Asset Management Agency - UCD Commercial Law Centre, Dublin
http://www.ucd.ie/iccls/programs.htm
Fri. 27 Nov.2009:
Assessing Liability in Asset Management - Placing the Legal Principles in their Financial Context - UCD Commercial Law Centre, Dublin
http://www.ucd.ie/iccls/programs.htm
Sat. 28 Nov.'09:
Aspects of Asylum and Immigration Law - The Bar Council of Ireland, Dublin
http://tinyurl.com/lawlib111
Sat.28 Nov.'09
Recent Developments in Irish Defamation Law, Including the Defamation Act 2009 - School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, CPD Conference
www.tcd.ie/Law/Events
Mon.30 Nov.'09:
The Intel Decision - ISEL Competition Law Forum, Dublin
http://www.isel.ie
Mon.30 Nov.'09:
Launch of IPRT report on Detention of Children - Dublin
http://www.iprt.ie/contents/1457
Tue.1 Dec.'09:
FLAC Third Annual Dave Ellis Memorial Lecture
http://tinyurl.com/flac3rd
Wed.2 Dec.2009:
Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 - UCD Commercial Law Centre, Dublin
http://www.ucd.ie/iccls/programs.htm
Thu.-Fri.3-4 Dec.2009:
Police Governance and Accountability, Limerick
http://www2.ul.ie/pdf/375079620.doc
Thu.-Fri.3-4 Dec.'09:
Intensive Course on Planning Law (Including Developments on Strategic Infrastructure, Habitats and the New Planning Bill 2009) - Centre for Environmental Law, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, CPD Course
http://www.tcd.ie/Law/Events
Sat.5 Dec.'09:
Meeting the Challenges - New Ways of Doing Business. Speakers: K Erwin, Mediators'Institute of Ireland; J Maguire Collaborative Law; P Marrinan Quinn SC Conflict & Dispute Resolution Diploma TCD: T O'Riordan Manager Public Interest Law Project FLAC. Irish Women Lawyers' Association, Dublin.
http://www.iwla.ie
Sat.5 Dec.'09:
Tort Litigation: Recent Developments - School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, CPD Conference
http://www.tcd.ie/Law/Events
Fri.11 Dec.'09:
Intensive Course on Waste Law including the New Waste Directive - Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, CPD Course
http://www.tcd.ie/Law/Events
5-6 March 2010:
Irish Society of Comparative Law Annual Conference, Belfast
http://tinyurl.com/iscl-1
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tipperary Mental Health Inquiry
The Tipperary report made findings which included the following: A high number of residents have sustained fractures; wards were unnecessarily locked; seclusion was being used too often; patients were forced to wear nightclothes during the day; there were no comprehensive needs assessments or care plans for residents.
A number of legal points arise from the report. For example, it is significant that the Mental Health Commission (press release) has proposed to attach conditions to the continued operation of the two approved centres requiring the Health Service Executive to produce a plan with precise timescales to address breaches in regulations, rules and codes of practice found by the Inspectorate of Mental Health Services during its inspection in late 2008. The Commission would require a quarterly report on the achievement of targets set in the plan.
Under the Mental Treatment Act 1945, the Inspector of Mental Hospitals could issue reports which were critical of mental health facilities, but there was no direct process for requiring improvement in those facilities. The new procedure under the Mental Health Act 2001 contains a process for improvement, by way of attaching conditions to registration, and the possibility of removal of a centre from the register. The CEO has said that the Commission is taking a "graduated response" approach (Annual Report 2007, p.8)
The report also highlights the over-use of locked wards. For example: "Although very few residents were detained under the Mental Health Act 2001 several ward doors were locked and staff referred to residents being ‘allowed out’ or given ‘parole’, when they should have been free to come and go as they wished." (para.13.1.3)
The problem of de facto detention of "voluntary" patients is as yet unresolved in Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights has found in H.L. v United Kingdom that certain deprivations of liberty of 'informal' patients in England breached Article 5 . Ireland urgently needs new legislation to close the so-called "Bournewood gap", but the scheme of the Mental Capacity Bill contains no proposals on this topic.
As Fergus Finlay rightly said in his RTE Drivetime radio column, if this was a story about animals, it would have exploded all over the news.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Mental Health Commission Panels
The Mental Health Commission is seeking applications for positions on the panels associated with the operation of Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 2001. The following panels are now open to applications:
- Chairpersons Mental Health Tribunals
- Consultant Psychiatrists Mental Health Tribunals
- Lay Members Mental Health Tribunals
- Consultant Psychiatrists Independent Medical Examinations
- Legal Representatives Mental Health Legal Aid Scheme
Closing date for receipt of application is 5.00 pm Friday 20 March 2009.
Information and Forms:http://www.mhcirl.ie/panels.htm
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Mental Health Act 2001: Unresolved Issues
Here are some extracts from the Irish Times article, with links:
The hasty enactment of the Mental Health Act 2008 ... has probably resolved the legal issues caused by the recent High Court case, but there are other related issues that remain unresolved. Mr Justice Bryan McMahon issued a significant ruling in the case of a woman who has been detained in St Patrick's Hospital since August 2007. Various legal issues arose regarding her detention. ...
[McMahon J. decided that a renewal order for a period not exceeding 12 months was void for uncertainty. However, he put a four-week stay on his order directing the patient's discharge.]
This whole affair raises questions as to the wording of the Mental Health Act 2001, and the forms specified by the Mental Health Commission. As Mr Justice McMahon pointed out, "the error in this case was prompted by the wording of the form used by the Commission". ....
As regards the wording of the Mental Health Act, a number of issues have arisen regarding the time limits, and these have led to the Commission issuing a 1,200-word guidance page on "Duration of Involuntary Admission and Renewal Orders". This guidance will need to be amended in the light of the recent court case. It may now be better to reword the Act so that the time limits operate in a more logical and streamlined manner....
...
It is noteworthy that a number of other significant issues remain unresolved and require urgent attention. For example, a patient who has their detention renewed for six months (for example), cannot apply to a Mental Health Tribunal for a review of their case during the six-month period, and must wait until the automatic review which will occur at the end of the six months, if the psychiatrist makes a renewal order. This is in spite of a clear ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in Rakevich v Russia in 2003, where it was stated that "the detainee's access to the judge should not depend on the good will of the detaining authority".
The 2001 Act provides that a person may be removed to an approved psychiatric centre by members of staff of the approved centre in certain circumstances (s.13). These "assisted admissions" are often carried out by an independent contractor, rather than members of staff. In the R.L. case in 2008, it was held by the Supreme Court that the use of an independent contractor was a breach of the Act, although the patient's detention was upheld. It appears that such breaches of the Act have continued, in spite of the legal difficulties which they raise.
There are serious doubts about the burden of proof in Circuit Court appeals, where the patient is required to prove that he or she does not have a mental disorder (s.19), even though such a burden would appear to be contrary to the European Convention.
In addition, the powers of Mental Health Tribunals are unduly restricted by the 2001 Act. They may not consider questions of compliance with the sections on removal to the approved centre (s.13), referral of the admission order to the tribunal (s.17), transfer of a patient to hospital (s.22) or compliance with the Mental Treatment Act 1945.
The time has come for a fundamental review of the Mental Health Act 2001 in light of the Irish case law to date, experience in the operation of the Act and recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Reference may also be made to the Mental Health Commission's Report on the Operation of Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 2001 (2008) and the Department of Health and Children's Review of the Operation of the Mental Health Act 2001: Findings and Conclusions (2007).
Friday, May 02, 2008
Report of Commissioner for Human Rights on Ireland
Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by the Commissioner on his Visit to Ireland 26 - 30 November 2007 (CommDH(2008)9, Council of Europe, 2008)
Go to
www.commissioner.coe.int and choose 'Latest Documents'
For a link to the actual report, try this:
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1283555
[Click the PDF icon if you want a PDF version]
Media report (extract):
Commissioner doesn't pull his punches
Irish Times, 1 May 2008
www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0501/1209592340146.html
Ireland's record in looking after vulnerable people is graphically spelt out by the Council of Europe, writes Jamie Smyth, European Correspondent
COMMISSIONER FOR human rights Thomas Hammarberg didn't pull any punches when he presented his report on Ireland's human rights record to the Council of Europe's committee of ministers in Strasbourg yesterday.
His 58-page analysis of Government policy lays bare his office's assessment that the standard of care currently provided to vulnerable groups in society such as children, asylum seekers, Travellers and psychiatric patients is unacceptable.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Latest from UCC Law Faculty ...
Forthcoming UCC Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights (CCJHR) events are listed here.
These include:
- 25 October 2007: Mental Health and Human Rights Seminar
- 3 April 2008: Youth Justice Conference [call for abstracts now online]
Thanks to Fiona De Londras, the new CCJHR blog is here.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Review of Mental Health Act 2001 published
www.dohc.ie/publications/mental_health_act_review07.html.
The review suggests very few changes to the Act, but some interesting points include the following:
- The Minister accepts in principle that the references to "unwilling" in sections 59 and 60 should be removed, but this will need to be done in the context of any new capacity legislation
- The Minister accepts that there appears to be a drafting error in section 61
- As consultant numbers increase consideration should be given to reducing the 14 day time period allowed for in section 17(1)(c)(iii) to receive the second consultant’s report. This would also facilitate the earlier scheduling of Mental Health Tribunals and provide earlier access by patients and their legal advisors to the second opinion reports prior to hearings.
- When a voluntary patient has a mental disorder and requires involuntary admission for treatment, the use of the normal involuntary admission procedures is preferred. The status of patients should not lightly be changed from voluntary to involuntary, and the rights of patients in this regard must be fully safeguarded. The legal scope for using the normal admission procedures under sections 9 and 10 will be examined.
- The Act should be amended when a suitable opportunity arises to provide for the closure of approved centres.
- A monitoring group, consisting of representatives of the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the HSE, the Mental Health Commission, service providers and service users should be established to address any difficulties with the Mental Health Act 2001, to oversee the linkages between the Mental Health Act 2001 and the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 and to contribute to the development of any proposed capacity legislation.