Court of Appeal allows appeal of High Court ruling that a person detained under mental health legislation had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation underpinning his involuntary detention, on the grounds that: a) the applicant did have the requisite standing to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant legislation; b) the involuntary detention of the applicant without the necessary attendant safeguards rendered the legislation unconstitutional, meaning fresh legislation will be necessary; and c) the declaration of unconstitutionality will be suspended for six months to allow for the State to legislate.
Mental health law – judicial review – appeal of High Court ruling that the applicant had no effective way of challenging his involuntary detention after the having exhausted a recourse to the Tribunal or the Circuit Court – interpretation and application of the Mental Health Act 2001 – involuntary detention at St. Loman’s – alternative suitable accommodation for the applicant – Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights – locus standi issue – remitting the constitutional issue to the High Court – whether this Court should determine the constitutional issue – whether patients who are subject to six-month and twelve-month detention orders enjoy sufficient safeguards – whether the procedure provided for by Article 40.4.2 is simply equivalent to the habeas corpus regime as it operates in England and Wales – scope of Article 40.4.2 in mental health cases – conclusions regarding the scope of review in Article 40 applications – s. 15(3) of the 2001 Act adjudged unconstitutional – nature of the finding of unconstitutionality and its consequences – whether the finding of unconstitutionality should be suspended – appeal allowed.