Irish citizen lacking capacity to manage own affairs was entitled to return to Ireland from hospital in UK

Applicant seeking declaration that the defendant is of unsound mind to such a degree that he is incapable of managing his affairs and cannot protect his best welfare interests - of foot of court order from 2012, defendant detained in medical facility in Northampton, U.K. - defendant subject of intensive welfare reviews - defendant continues to suffer from a serious personality disorder and bi-polar personality disorder - defendant turned 18 in October 2014 - court order from October 2014 found that defendant should continue to be detained in U.K. facility until his treatment is completed or upon a further court order - plaintiffs were ordered to bring proceedings to bring defendant to this jurisdiction when defendant reached his age of majority - defendant habitually resident in Ireland and will remain so for the duration of his treatment - no information about the defendant to be published - consultant psychiatrist from this jurisdiction gave evidence to the court - he stated that defendant planned or instrument violence for which he had no remorse - defendant sometimes expressed remorse that he had not inflicted a more significant level of violence and damage - defendant had a pronounced over valued ideation about returning to Ireland - this ideation resulted in the defendant avoiding engaging in the necessary psychiatric treatment - impulsivity still present in defendant - defendant had low to moderate risk of violence in a structured care environment but this could increase in the context of non-compliance and alcohol misuse - consultant psychiatrist opined that defendant can express preferences but may not meet the threshold for consent to the broader aspects of his care - other consultant psychiatrist believed that defendant had capacity to come to court and make his views known but felt that the defendant did not have the capacity to make the correct decision regarding his future care - guardian ad litem for defendant gave evidence that he could understand the treatment process fully - principles for determining whether an individual has capacity are set out in Fitzpatrick v. F.K - no statutory test for capacity in this jurisdiction - definition of consent in section 56 of the Mental Health Act 2001 - court has a duty to vindicate the personal rights of the citizen under Article 40 - judicial intervention may be necessitated in exceptional circumstances - where a person suffers from a mental health impairment which does not come within the scope of the Mental Health Act, there is no statutory scheme that regulates how therapeutic intervention is imposed - section 8(2) of the Act states that a person who is suffering from a personality order is not detainable under an involuntary admission - court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to see that the best interests of the vulnerable adult are vindicated - any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights - defendant has right to family life within the state pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution - opinion of consultant psychiatrist that defendant continue to be treated in the UK amounts to preventative medicine - court holds that defendant does not have capacity to make material decisions in terms of his medical treatment and therapy - Fitzpatrick v FK upheld - intervention of the court is necessitated - present detention of defendant continued with a view to an orderly transition to an appropriate placement in Ireland - court recommends committee of doctors to be formed to oversee transition of defendant to Ireland - guardian at litem to remain involved - defendant should remain under the intensive welfare review system which the court carries out on at least monthly intervals to assist with the transitioning of defendant back to Ireland.