"Significant judgment" delivered today in case challenging Mental Health Act provisions – IHRC appeared as amicus curiae
Press Release
23 November 2012
The Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) today welcomed the Judgment of the High Court (Mr Justice MacMenamin) in the case of MX v Health Service Executive. The IHRC appeared as amicus curiae (or ‘friend of the court’) in the case, highlighting 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 proceedings challenged the constitutionality of Section 57 of the Mental Health Act 2001 and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
MX (who may not be named for legal reasons) is detained in the Central Mental Hospital. Her treatment there includes regular blood tests to guard against possibly fatal adverse reactions to medication. MX was resisting the blood tests. Her doctors determined that the treatment was in her "best interests" and necessary to relieve her condition.
Section 57 of the Mental Health Act 2001 allows for the non-consensual medical treatment of an involuntary patient. Such treatment requires a determination by a consultant psychiatrist that the patient lacks capacity to consent to the treatment and that the treatment is clinically necessary.
Although Judge MacMenamin today did not find that MX’s rights under the Constitution or the ECHR had been breached, he made important observations regarding the Constitutional rights of persons in mental health detention and also about the applicability, in domestic law, of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Mr Des Hogan, Acting CEO of the IHRC said:
"This is a significant judgment. It affirms how the fundamental rights of persons with a mental disorder, under the Mental Health Act 2001, may be upheld. The High Court has today found that there is a positive constitutional right of access to the Courts for persons with a mental health disability and, importantly, that there is a right to assisted, as opposed to substituted, decision making for such persons."
Mr Hogan went on to State:
"In this case, the IHRC highlighted the importance of the United Nation’s Disability Convention. We are particularly pleased that the High Court regarded the Disability Convention as "a helpful reference point for the identification of "prevailing ideas and concepts", which are to be assessed in harmony with the constitutional requirements of what is "practicable" in mind." This statement is a powerful endorsement of the rights of persons with disabilities. The right to assisted decision making derives from Article 12 of the Disability Convention. It affirms that persons with a disability enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with everyone else. This is a fundamental norm established by the Convention. While the State has not yet introduced capacity legislation, this Judgment is a strong safeguard against unwarranted intrusion into the autonomy rights of persons with a disability."
ENDS/
For more information, please contact
Fidelma Joyce, IHRC Tel: 01 8589601 Mob: 087 783 4939
Notes to Editor:
This is the IHRC’s fourteenth intervention in the Superior Courts as amicus curiae further to section 8(h) of the Human Rights Commission Act 2000.
The Commission’s written submissions are now on the website.