AB and MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL [2016] WASAT 71

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 71
Act:	MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2014 (WA)
Case No:	MHA:2/2016	Heard:	29 MARCH AND 9 MAY 2016
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) DR F NG (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	15/06/16
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Community treatment order to remain in effect
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AB MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Catchwords:	Mental health Mental Health Act 1996 Mental Health Act 2014 Mental illness Paranoid schizophrenia Persecutory delusions Community treatment order Transitional provisions of the Mental Health Act 2014 Mental Health Tribunal Review jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal Mental illness in need of treatment Significant risk to health or safety Significant risk of suffering serious physical or mental deterioration Incapacity to make treatment decisions Treatment can reasonably be provided in the community No less restrictive alternative to the making of a community treatment order
Legislation:	Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 4, s 6, s 18, s 21, s 23, s 25(2), s 25(3), s 121, s 386, s 390, s 391, s 394, s 394(1), s 395, s 494, s 494(1), s 547(1)(a), s 623 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 25(2), s 27, s 29, s 29(2), Pt 3, Div 3
Case References:	LS v Mental Health Review Board [2013] WASCA 128
Summary	AB is a 68yearold man who had been diagnosed with a longstanding mental illness. He lived in the sand dunes of a local beach and had done so for over five years.,The primary symptoms of the mental illness were persecutory delusions.,AB said he did not have a mental illness and believed the diagnosis of the mental illness was as a consequence of a government conspiracy in which the psychiatrist of the mental health team played a part.,In November 2015, the mental health team observed a decline in AB's functioning which was sufficient to consider active treatment for his mental illness.,AB declined the treatment and a community treatment order was made under the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) to enforce treatment.,The Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) was subsequently repealed and replaced by the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). ,A community treatment order made under the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) was deemed to be a community treatment order made under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). ,AB sought review of the community treatment order and the order was confirmed by the Mental Health Tribunal.,The community treatment order was subsequently continued by way of a continuation order made under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). ,The Mental Health Tribunal confirmed the continuation order.,AB sought review of the decisions of the Mental Health Tribunal with the State Administrative Tribunal.,The State Administrative Tribunal found that AB continued to satisfy the requirements for the making of a community treatment order. In particular, that AB had a mental illness requiring treatment; that because of the mental illness there…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AB and MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WASAT 71
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved AB, a person with paranoid schizophrenia and persecutory delusions, and the Mental Health Tribunal. AB was subject to a community treatment order under the transitional provisions of the Mental Health Act 2014. The dispute centred around the continued validity of the community treatment order and whether AB's mental condition still warranted such an order. The matter was heard by the State Administrative Tribunal, which has the review jurisdiction under the Mental Health Act 2014.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether AB's mental illness remained in need of treatment, and if there was a significant risk to AB's health or safety, or significant risk of serious physical or mental deterioration. Additionally, the tribunal considered whether AB was incapacitated to make treatment decisions, and if treatment could reasonably be provided in the community with no less restrictive alternative than a community treatment order. The tribunal had to weigh the necessity of the order against AB's rights and freedoms.

The tribunal found that AB's paranoid schizophrenia and persecutory delusions constituted a mental illness in need of treatment, posing a significant risk to AB's health or safety. The tribunal was satisfied that AB was incapacitated to make treatment decisions and that treatment could reasonably be provided in the community without a less restrictive alternative. The tribunal also concluded that the community treatment order was the least restrictive means to ensure AB received the necessary treatment while maintaining their autonomy to the greatest extent possible. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the community treatment order.

The tribunal's decision was that the community treatment order should remain in effect, ensuring AB continues to receive the necessary treatment for their paranoid schizophrenia and persecutory delusions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Community treatment order to remain in effect

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.