Mental patient being detained against his will brings case to High Court

An action brought by a man detained at the Central Mental Hospital (CMH) who claims that the refusal to release him is a breach of his rights under the European Convention is due to be heard by the High Court in July.

The man cannot be identified for legal reasons, has brought proceedings against the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General seeking his release on grounds including that he is entitled to be discharged subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Mental Health (Criminal Law) review board in accordance with section 13(9) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.

The man has been detained at the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum for several years after he was found guilty but insane of killing another person.

After he was before the court a Judge ordered that the man be sent to the CMH until the pleasure of the Government was known.

The man's action, which has been described by lawyers as an important test case as it is understood that there are a number of similar cases in the pipeline, is scheduled to be heard by a High Court Judge sometime in early July.

Today at the High Court Mr Justice John MacMenamin agreed to adjourn a similar application against the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board and the State by another person detained at the CMH to July when the outcome of the test case has been determined.

In his action the man is seeking an order from the court compelling the Mental Health Review Board to grant him conditional release from the CMH and a declaration that the decision to refuse his release is "ultra viries" with the provisions of the 2006 Act.

He is also seeking declarations from the Court that the refusal to grant the man a conditional discharge is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the failure to grant him a full, public and proper appeal against the decision to refuse to given him his conditional release is incompatible with with the State's obligations pursuant to the Convention.

In addition he is further seeking declarations that the 2006 Act fails to state the manner in which the conditions of his release may be imposed by the Review Board, how they should be enforced, and that the CMH is obliged to develop protocol in that regard.