A Co Limerick woman who was committed against her will to a psychiatric hospital has had her case accepted as admissible by the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The Commission rejected arguments from the Government that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
Ms Mary O'Reilly (40) claims that her committal represented an arbitrary detention in violation of Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights. Following a hearing in camera last week the Commission has declared the application admissible without prejudice to its merits.
The Commission will now consider the merits of the case and will put itself at the disposal of the parties, Ms O'Reilly and the Government, to see if mediation is possible.
If successful, it reports on the outcome to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe If not it rules on the issue and its decision either goes to Ministers or can be referred to the full Court of Human Rights.
Ms O'Reilly was committed against her will to St Joseph's Hospital in Limerick in 1988 on foot of an application by her husband, Mr Alan O'Reilly, under Section 184 (4) of the Mental Health Act 1945. She was released after three days.
The first doctor involved in signing a committal form, Dr Patrick Moroney, admitted that he had formed his view of the plaintiff's mental health from her husband's and father's accounts of her history and from an examination of her from 12 to 15 yards distance while she was having a dispute with her husband. Ms O'Reilly, who was hysterical and violent towards her husband, was not, however, aware of his presence.
A second doctor signed the form after a physical examination of Ms O'Reilly and consultation with Dr Moroney and a consultant psychiatrist.
Both the High Court and Supreme Court, which ruled in November 1993, subsequently found that Dr Moroney's actions were sufficient "examination" for the purposes of the Act. Ms O'Reilly failed to win leave to take proceedings against either Dr Moroney or the Mid Western Health Board.
The Government argued against admissibility by the Commission on the grounds, among others, that Ms O'Reilly had failed to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant section of the Act.
The plaintiff responded that she not question the constitutionality of Section 184, merely the hod of its application to her.
A constitutional challenge not have provided her remedy.
The Government also denies the substance of the claim, arguing that the circumstances constituted an emergency, and that the assigned to the second doctor under the Act guaranteed that committal could not be "arbitrary". It also disputes the for compensation.
Appearing for Ms O'Reilly the Commission hearing were Andrew Sexton BL and Ms Lucy Collins solicitor Mr Paul Gallagher, Mr Diarmaid McGuinness and Mr Matthew Feely of the Attorney General's office, where for the Government.
