Antunovic v Dawson

Antunovic applied for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to challenge the legality of her detention in a mental health treatment unit, against the decision of Dawson as the Director of the mental health service. Antunovic contended that she was being unlawfully detained when she was not permitted to live at home with her mother, despite being allowed to leave the facility during the day. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the court had the common law jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to review the legality of the detention of an adult mentally ill person. The court also had to determine whether the applicant's human rights, particularly her personal liberty and freedom of movement, were protected, and if the detention was lawfully justified. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the court should grant relief and, if so, what form it should take.

The court found that it had the common law jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, as the cause shown and the relief sought was not discretionary. The court held that the applicant's human rights were protected, and her detention was not lawfully justified. The court determined that the most efficacious relief was an order for the applicant's release. The court applied the ancient Imperial statutes, including the Magna Carta 1297 (Imp), the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (Imp), and the Habeas Corpus Act 1816 (Imp), as well as the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, the Mental Health Act 1986, the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980, and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The court ordered that Antunovic be released from detention, finding that her detention was unlawful and a violation of her human rights.