Clinical Director was entitled to disagree with review board regarding conditional discharge order

Judicial review – mental health – substantive hearing - patient challenging the Clinical Director of the National Forensic Mental Health Service’s refusal to make the necessary arrangements for facilitating compliance by the patient with the conditions of a Conditional Discharge Order - Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board - patient was found guilty but insane of a homicide offence - committed to the Central Mental Hospital - re-classified as a person found not guilty by reason of insanity under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 - underwent periodic reviews by the Review Board – Review Board was prepared to grant a conditional discharge to the patient – conditions – she was to comply with the conditions laid down by the National Forensic Mental Health Service treating team in relation to her residing at any location and any change of location – the place of residence of the patient would be determined by the legally responsible consultant psychiatrist - the place of residence would be discussed with the patient and any decision in relation to the place of residence will be based clinical reasons – she had to inform her treating team if she experienced symptoms of mental illness – had to inform her treating team of harmful behaviours – intoxicants - inform the treating teams if her husband were to resume drinking alcohol - obliged to inform the treating team of any deterioration in their marital relationship – informed them that her husband had been verbally abusive and had threatened physical violence to their teenage son – she was removed from the marital home and went to live with her mother - sought amendment of the conditions, in order for herself to become the primary decision maker in relation to her place of residence on the grounds that it was detrimental to her health and wellbeing - wished to stay at home overnight with her husband – Review Board made a further conditional discharge order acceding to vary the conditions – patient would have been the primary decision maker in relation to her place of residence – Clinical Director refused to make the necessary arrangements to facilitate a variation in the conditional discharge order – Review Board again requested the Clinical Director to make the necessary arrangements for the implementation of the varied conditional discharge order – Clinical Director again refused - Review Board did not give any reasons for rejecting the concerns raised by the treating psychiatrist and the Clinical Director – no evidence that the Review Board considered or addressed the concerns raised in the psychiatrist’s report - patient applied and was granted an unconditional discharge order - unconditional discharge order rendered certain reliefs moot – sought damages - whether or not the reliefs sought in this case are moot or whether they are live issues still to be determined - doctrine of mootness - a duty upon the Review Board to respond to the concerns raised by psychiatrist and the Clinical Director - in the absence of detailed responses to these issues, the Clinical Director was entitled to disagree with the decision of the Board - Court will not grant damages where the respondent had acted in the interest of the applicant and the public at large.