IN the Supreme Court yesterday a Dublin man who had stabbed three psychiatric nurses, one almost fatally, when they came to take him from his home threes years ago challenged the legislation under which he was detained, in a psychiatric hospital.
Mr Sean Croke (40), with an address in Artane, Dublin, had been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness in the early 1980s. With parental support he led a "fairly normal life" and had been gainfully employed.
The Supreme Court was told yesterday that Mr Croke's illness was treated with low doses of medication and three temporary admissions to St Ita's Hospital, Portrane, Co Dublin.
On July 7th, 1993, he was unwilling to submit to electro convulsive therapy (ECT), left St Ita's and returned to his parents' home.
In a submission to the court, it was stated that a party of nurses was sent two days later to bring Mr Croke back.
Being unwilling to undergo ECT he shut himself in room. When psychiatric nurses broke into his room, he violently resisted arrest and stabbed three nurses, one almost fatally.
He was arrested by gardai and transferred to the Central Mental
Hospital in Dundrum for "special treatment".
On July 14th, 1994, the Supreme Court ordered his release because he had been detained in excess of the six month period authorised the original reception that same day, garda called to his parents' home and took him to St Ita's. The medical director made a reception order, and Mr Croke was detained under Section 172 of the 1945 Mental Treatment Act.
The matter came before the High Court last year, when Mr Justice Budd found Section 172 was unconstitutional and stated a case to the Supreme Court for its opinion. Section 172 provided that, where a "chargeable patient son could be detained until his removal or discharge by proper authority or his death . . ."
Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Croke, claimed that the section allowed for the indefinite detention of a patient and said that the power conferred by it was drastic and far reaching.
A person was not afforded an opportunity before a court or independent tribunal challenge the reliability of the diagnoses of procedures used to commit him to the treatment proposed or the necessity for compulsory treatment. He had no right of appeal to any independent tribunal or court.
Mr Rogers told the court that a mere psychiatric diagnosis was not sufficient to authorise the indefinite detention of a person.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, asked if the Government could not settle this case under the provisions of 1981 mental treatment legislation which had never been brought into force.
Mr Justice Barrington said that Mr Rogers's client would have independent review board report on the progress of his treatment under the 1981 legislation.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty asked relation to a review of a person detention what better could be obtained than that provided under Article 40 (habeas corpus) of the Constitution. That was better than any review board.
Mr Rogers said that Article was an ideal procedure where a patient knew what was going on.
The hearing continues today.