Court of Appeal

High Court

High Court

High Court

High Court

High Court

An appeal from a decision of the High Court to dismiss the appellant's application for judicial review, directed against a Trust's failure to permit the appellant (who was subject to a guardianship order) to live, on a full-time basis, with her husband.

For the appellant, Mr Larkin QC submitted that the High Court was wrong not to have recognised that the failure of the trust to address her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention rendered their decision insupportable. He suggested that the judge's conclusion that the decision of the trust was proportionate was unsupported by analysis and that, in any event, the judge's view that it was not in breach of Article 8 could not substitute for a proper process of reasoning by the decision-maker itself.

Counsel also argued that the right enshrined in Article 12 of the Convention encompassed the right to cohabit.

An application for judicial review of the decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal directing that the applicant should continue to be detained at Muckamore Abbey Hospital under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

The four grounds of the application were—

(i) Failing to establish under Article 77(1) of the Order that the applicant had severe impairment of intelligence as well as severe impairment of social functioning.

(ii) Failing to establish for the purposes of Article 5(4) of the European Convention that the applicant has sufficient knowledge of the findings and views of the medical member of the Tribunal.

(iii) Failing to establish under Article 77(1) of the Order that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which warranted her detention in hospital for medical treatment.

(iv) Failing to give adequate reasons for the decision to detain the applicant.

In addition the applicant objected to the structural position of the medical member of the Tribunal but reserved argument on that issue.

The applicant was detained at Knockbracken Health Care Park under the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986. She applied for judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal that she not be discharged.

The three grounds of the application were—

(1) Procedural unfairness in the conduct of the tribunal proceedings;

(2) Tribunal error in declining to consider a request for a hospital transfer under Article 77(2)(a);

(3) That Article 77(1) was not compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that it placed the burden of proof on the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal of the grounds for discharge.

An application by the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust for judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal ordering that AMM, a patient at Muckamore Abbey Hospital, should be conditionally discharged.

There were two issues. Firstly, the Trust contended that the Tribunal was in error in deciding that "severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning" required proof of severe impairment of intelligence as a distinct ingredient rather than proof of severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning as a composite ingredient of the definition. Secondly, the Trust contended that the Tribunal was in error in deciding, on the basis of the British Psychological Society guideline that an IQ above 54 did not amount to "severe" impairment, that the patient was not suffering from severe impairment of intelligence.

An application by a patient detained at Knockbracken Healthcare Park for judicial review of certain decisions taken by a Mental Health Tribunal relating to the hearing of an application by him to  be discharged.

The applicant challenged the compatibility of Rules 11 and 12 of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules (Northern Ireland) 1986 with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular articles 5 and 6.

It was submitted that these rules should not be applied as proposed by the tribunal because this would entail a breach of natural justice and a violation of the applicant's rights under the Convention. More particularly: —

(a) The tribunal would rely on expert evidence not disclosed to the applicant or his advisers, namely the examination of the applicant by the medical member. The outcome of that examination and the opinion formed by the medical member was central to the decision to be taken by the tribunal and neither the applicant nor his advisers would have the opportunity to challenge his findings.

(b)  The involvement of the medical member in the adjudicatory function of the tribunal was incompatible with his role as a witness who provided expert evidence that would influence the result of the application that the applicant be discharged.

An application for judicial review of the decision by the Department of Health & Social Services and Public Safety removing her from the Knockbracken Healthcare Park in Northern Ireland to the State Hospital at Carstairs in Scotland.

The applicant also sought a declaration that in failing to provide special accommodation for persons requiring treatment under conditions of special security the Department was in breach of its obligations under Article 110 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.