A claim by a father of four that he was committed to a psychiatric hospital by his wife as part of her alleged bid to get a substantial award which he received for injuries sustained in a car crash, was adjourned for a week by the High Court yesterday.
Mr David Harty (27) of Shandon Road, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, claims his wife, Geraldine had him committed to the psychiatric unit of Waterford Regional Hospital on March 16th last.
He said in an affidavit he was concerned about his wife's motive and also believed she had been unfaithful.
He told a court hearing a week ago he did not believe his detention was necessary.
Although he was being well treated, he was being detained against his will, he said. Mr Robert O'Neill, for Mr Harty, argued that proper procedures had not been followed and that his client had stated he had not been informed of any rights.
Last week, the court directed that the person in charge of Waterford Regional Hospital bring Mr Harty to court yesterday for the purpose of a judicial inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.
Yesterday, Mr David Kennedy, for the South Eastern Health Board, said the medical evidence was that Mr Harty had been examined by three doctors and was clearly unwell.
He had been afforded a right to a second medical opinion. Medical reports indicated that various threats had been made by Mr Harty.
Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said the essential point when the matter had been last before him was not concerned with the medical condition on which Mr Harty had been certified but with a technical point which had been raised.
Mr Kennedy said Mr Harty was initially examined at a Garda station by a general practitioner under Section 162 of the 1945 Mental Treatment Act.
This provided that a doctor must certify and recommend the patient be received into hospital.
Medical reports indicated Mr Harty was brought to hospital where he was examined by two doctors.
Where a person was seriously ill, they could, under Section 162, be detained indefinitely.
One of the receiving doctors had decided, having regard to Mr Harty's illness, it was more appropriate to admit him under Section 184, Mr Kennedy said.
That provided for a patient to be detained for not more than six months.
He was brought into the hospital and, apparently at his own request, a second opinion was sought and granted.
All three doctors who examined him had confirmed the diagnosis, Mr Kennedy told the court. Mr O'Neill said he had been taken by surprise by the claims being made on behalf of the board.
There had been no evidence that an application had initially been made under Section 162.
He had thought it had been clear that the application had been brought under Section 184.
Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said he would adjourn the matter to next Monday .