AN Irishwoman, Ms Mary O'Reilly, has received damages of £14,000 in settlement of an action brought against the Government in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Ms O'Reilly had been illegally detained in a psychiatric hospital in 1988 for three days at the instigation of her husband following an "examination" of her by a doctor which did not involve any physical examination.
The Government settlement with Ms O'Reilly also involved payment of legal expenses and costs of £51,950.40 and followed a non binding ruling in her favour by the European Commission of Human Rights.
The Commission in January last year had declared the case admissible without prejudice to the merits. A settlement of the issue, agreed in December, was announced in the last few days by the court.
Ms O'Reilly (40) had been confined to a psychiatric institution after her husband had asked a psychiatrist to do so under Article 184 (4) of the Mental Health Act 1945. However, the decision by the doctor had been based, according to his own evidence, in part on an assessment of her mental health based on a history given by her husband and father who feared for her safety. The doctor had also examined her by watching her from a distance of 12 to 15 yards from her home while she had a row with her husband.
A second doctor at the hospital examined her physically and spoke to the first doctor. He then signed the committal form. She was released after three days.
Ms O'Reilly applied for leave to sue the health board but was turned down by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Both considered that the first doctor's examination constituted sufficient "examination" for the purposes of the Act.
She then took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, complaining under Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights that her detention was "arbitrary" and that the Irish courts provided no effective means of compensation or remedies.
The Government argued that the committal did not constitute a breach of Article 5 and that she had not pursued all domestic remedies, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the Act.
They also contended that the circumstances amounted to an emergency and that the second examination constituted sufficient safeguard for the patient.
The Commission's finding that there was a case to be heard does not, however, constitute a precedent in terms of the constitutionality of the Act, legal sources say. In practice, they argue, the case means only that in future two physical examinations will be required before the Act can be used for a committal.
