THE HIGH COURT has granted orders preventing a man who suffered severe head injuries following an alleged assault from leaving the hospital where he is currently a patient.

The man cannot be identified by order of the court.

During today’s vacation sitting of the court, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts was told by the hospital’s lawyers that the man has suffered injuries to his brain, and that his memory has been impaired.

However, the man does not believe, or is aware that he has sustained such injuries, and wants to discharge himself from the hospital.

The court heard that the man has expressed a desire to go home and to go “fishing”.

Those treating the man are strongly opposed to him leaving the facility at this point in time.

They claim that at present he has nowhere suitable to go where he would be in a position to get the support and help that he needs.

However, the man would be in an extremely vulnerable position if he was to leave the hospital.

The man’s condition was described to the court as being quite changeable.

Sometimes he is deemed by those treating him to be doing quite well, but on other occasions he experiences various difficulties associated with his injuries, particularly with his memory and his awareness of what has happened to him.

The court heard that the man is undergoing various treatments including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and psychotherapy at the hospital.

The man’s family are aware of the situation and are attempting to make arrangements so that he is properly cared for when he eventually leaves the hospital, the court heard.

After considering the hospital’s submissions, the judge said that she was prepared to make an order, for short time only, allowing the man to be continued to be detained at the medical facility.

While the judge was prepared to grant an order detaining the man in the hospital the judge said that case should be back before the court as soon as possible.

The judge said that she had reservations about granting what she said was such a “serious” order on an ex-parte basis.

The judge voiced her concerns over the level of medical evidence before the court concerning the man’s treatment.

The judge asked that it required to see clear evidence regarding the medical treatment the hospital says that man requires.

Such evidence needs to be produced in order to justify the granting or extending of court orders allowing the hospital to further detain the man.

The judge also appointed a lawyer to act as the man’s legal representative or “guardian ad litem” in the proceedings.

It was important the man’s voice, as well as the views of the man’s family, be heard in this matter the judge added.

The case returns before the court later this week.

Comments are closed as legal proceedings are ongoing.