The Mental Health Committee of the Commission rejected the lawyer's claims that his remarks were discriminatory when attempting to represent the patient before her.
The arbitral tribunal accepted by the patient is entitled to be represented by a lawyer, not in the chamber of lawyers led by the Commission, and its failure to comply with the fact that its reservation to an illegal patient is unlawful.
Solicitor Ashimedua Okonkwo, who tried to represent a woman who was detained as a hospital patient in the framework of the Mental Health Act, claimed that the court was not allowed to represent her at the hearing. A patient who opposed her detention did not want to be represented by another lawyer, and she and her family left the hearing in court.
In absentia, the court ruled that a woman should remain an involuntary patient in the hospital for six more months. For this reason, lawyers went to the Supreme Court on Friday when they asked for an investigation under article 40 of the Constitution into the legality of her continued detention.
During this request ex parte (only one page was represented), the statement by Ms Okonwo, who complained about how the case was before the court, was submitted to the court.
When the matter returned to Mr. Justice Seamusa Noonana on Monday, Feichin McDonagh SC for a woman, said that the investigation was not challenged. It was agreed that a decree on directing the release of a woman could be issued, but living could be used for this, and a discussion on the woman's constant concern could be discussed between the parties.
In a statement given by Donal McGuinness SC on behalf of the Tribunal, Mairead McKenna BL stated that the tribunal accepted that "the patient has the right to keep separate a lawyer who is not on the committee of lawyers led by the Commission". The patient was denied this option, and the case was approved because her current detention was not in accordance with the law, said the defender.
"We sincerely regret that this issue arose," he said in a statement.
The statement added that some media were attentive to the matter that referred to go. Okonkwo, in which she stated that some of the Tribunal's questions had been treated as discriminatory.
"These inquiries did not have any connection with its ethnicity or gender, with the proposal being strongly opposed by all three tribunal members who also have the right to protect their good name," he said.
The counselor said if a compulsory statement on this matter was necessary, the tribunal would have more than satisfied it. Okonkwo, headquartered in Balbriggan, Co Dublin, said in a statement sworn that a woman's family wanted to represent her wife at the tribunal.
The woman had a second lawyer previously assigned by the Commission to represent her, and Ms Okonwo said that she had notified the Commission that she had represented the woman at present. When she attended a tribunal meeting last week to examine the female case, Ms Okonkwo said that the previous lawyer was also present. Okonkwo claimed that she was asked by the court if she was trained to practice in Ireland and if she knew of acts of mental health and was not allowed to represent her wife to the court.
She said that the comments were annoying and treated them as discriminatory because she was black and women African.
Okonkwo said she was admitted in 2013 as a lawyer in Ireland, a Masters in Law from TCD, and she will receive a PhD in law at the same university. She claimed that she had been asked to be quiet and allowed to sit at the back of the room but was not allowed to speak, record or record.