Court orders man be released from illegal arrest at Mount Carmel

A magistrate has ordered the immediate release from Mount Carmel Hospital of a man who had been detained there against his will.

Lawyer Jason Grima, acting on behalf of a 57-year-old man, filed habeas corpus proceedings after he was detained following what appears to be a misunderstanding of a suggestion by his probation officer.

Habeas corpus proceedings are a legal remedy used in cases of illegal arrest.

In 2019, the man had pleaded guilty to attacking police officers who visited his home to speak to him about a neighbour’s harassment claim. At the time, the court had placed him under a three-year probation order and a three-year treatment order under the care of a psychiatrist who would be directed by the man’s probation officer.

Things were going smoothly until, on 9 January, the man’s probation officer filed a court application bringing the court’s attention to “facts of a serious nature, which according to that court merited being addressed effectively.” In that application, which was upheld by the court, the probation officer had asked that an order be issued, allowing the man to benefit from further care at Mount Carmel Hospital.

Subsequently, on 13 January, his lawyer said, the police had arrested the man and took him to the mental institution. This instead of notifying the man and giving him a chance to make submissions. The court could not amend a probation order if the subject of the order had not expressed his willingness to comply with the order as amended, Grima argued.

Neither could the court impose residential treatment for the man, he added and the court observed that in the decree, this was not in fact imposed. Rather, what the probation officer had requested was that the man “benefit from additional care at Mount Carmel Hospital.”

This hospital offers several care services, including outpatient treatment, pointed out the lawyer.

Magistrate Charmaine Galea did not mince her words as she upheld the man’s action. “This court cannot understand how the fact that the court had upheld that request was interpreted to mean that he should be arrested and taken against his will to Mount Carmel Hospital.”

The magistrate also pointed out that the law clearly stated that in order to vary a Treatment Order, the court had to hear all the parties first. Failing to abide by such an order carried with it a penalty of €7,000 or up to two years in prison, observed the court, saying it was therefore essential that one be aware of any variation to such an order and be given the opportunity to make submissions in this regard.

The court said it understood the probation officer’s concerns and had done what she did in the best interest of the man, but on the other hand it had emerged that things had not been done as they should have been done.  

For this reason the court ordered the man's immediate release from the hospital. The magistrate also recommended that the professionals treating the man continue to administer the treatment he needed.