Supporting Documents:
124-17 Respndt Notce readactd.pdf

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES.

Result: The Court grants leave to the applicant to appeal to this Court

Reasons Given:

Background

1. After being convicted of an offence or offences not specified in the papers the applicant was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. It appears that he served a significant part of the sentence in the Central Mental Hospital (“the Hospital”) and that he was a patient there in the days prior to his release date. Four days before that date the respondent (“the HSE”) applied to the President of the High Court for an order for the further detention of the applicant in the Hospital, authorised by reference to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, with a view to making an application to have him made a ward of court. A detention order was made and in due course the President made an order (on the 27th March 2017) declaring the applicant to be of unsound mind and ordering his continued detention in the Hospital. Ancillary orders were made in respect of the appointment of a Committee, the treatment of the applicant while in the Hospital and listing the matter for review after a period of six months.

2. The applicant’s legal representatives have objected to this procedure throughout. Their case is that the applicant satisfies the criteria for detention pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001 and that his procedural protections would be greater under that statutory scheme.

Discussion

3. As is clear from a range of determinations made by this Court since the 33rd Amendment to the Constitution came into force, the constitutional function of this Court is no longer that of an appeal court designed to correct alleged errors by the trial court. Where it is said that the High Court has simply been in error in some respect the constitutional regime now in place confers jurisdiction to correct any such error as may be established on the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court, whether directly from the High Court under Article 34.5.4 or from the Court of Appeal under Article 34.5.3, requires that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed against involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice to allow an appeal to this Court. It will rarely be necessary in the interest of justice to permit an appeal to this Court simply because it is said that the lower court was in error. An appeal to the Court of Appeal provides the appropriate remedy in those circumstances. Likewise a party which has had the opportunity to have the decision of the High Court reviewed by the Court of Appeal will have had the benefit of having been able to put its case both at trial and on appeal. Without more the interests of justice will not require a further appeal.

4. In addition, leave to appeal directly from the High Court requires the applicant to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances warranting such an appeal. The general principles applicable in such cases are discussed in the recent determination of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115.

5. Against that background it is necessary to address the basis upon which it said that the constitutional threshold is met in this case.

6. The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

The application for leave

7. The notices filed by the parties are available on this website and will not be summarised here. It will be noted that the respondent does not oppose the grant of leave. It will also be noted that the applicant has lodged an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

8. The principal legal issue raised by the applicant is whether the HSE or any other person who seeks to have a person involuntarily detained on mental health grounds can seek to do so via the statutory wardship procedure and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, notwithstanding the fact that the criteria for the Mental Health Act 2001 are satisfied.

Decision

9. The Court accepts that the principal issue raised is a point of law of general public importance relating to the proper parameters of the wardship jurisdiction. The Court also considers that, having regard to the Wansboro criteria, an appeal directly to this Court is justified. The relevant circumstances include the fact that the issue as framed is unlikely to be noticeably narrowed by an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and therefore considerations of speed and cost favour a direct appeal. However the applicant’s representatives should note that leave will be confined to that issue. It may be that they wish to pursue other questions raised in this case, such as whether or not the procedure adopted in the High Court was, on the facts of the case, not the most practical available or not in the best interests of the applicant. In that case they might wish to consider proceeding with the appeal currently before the Court of Appeal rather than serving a notice of intention to proceed in this Court.

And it is hereby so ordered accordingly.