IHRC appears as amicus curiae in case challenging provisions of mental health legislation which continues today and tomorrow

The Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is appearing in the High Court as amicus curiae or ‘friend of the court’ in D v Health Service Executive which challenges the constitutionality of Section 57 of the Mental Health Act 2001, as well as its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The case takes place today and tomorrow.

The IHRC will highlight key human rights standards and safeguards under the Constitution, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The IHRC was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings on 21 October 2011 and the hearing commenced on 28 February 2012 for a number of days after which time it was suspended until today’s hearing.

Ms D (who may not be named for legal reasons) is currently detained in a psychiatric institution, where she is being treated. This treatment requires the regular taking of blood tests to guard against a possibly fatal adverse physical reaction to medication. The patient is resisting the blood tests, which then requires that she be sedated or restrained while the blood tests are being taken. The treating doctors have determined that the treatment is in the best interest of Ms D and is necessary to relieve her condition.

Section 57 of the Mental Health Act 2001, allows for the non-consensual medical treatment of an involuntary patient where it is determined by their consultant psychiatrist that they lack capacity to consent to such treatment, and where such treatment is necessary to safeguard the life of the patient, to restore his or her health, or to alleviate his or her condition or suffering.

The case follows an earlier case involving Ms D where the Health Service Executive (HSE) had sought direction from the High Court as to the definition of "treatment" under Section 57 and whether it includes intrusive procedures such as the taking of blood tests. The High Court had decided that the term ‘treatment’ did have such a broad meaning. Ms D then began the present challenge.ENDS