BAF18 as litigation representative for BAG18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The matter involved an application by the applicant, BAF18, as the litigation representative for BAG18, for an interlocutory injunction to compel the respondents, the Minister for Home Affairs and others, to transfer the applicant from Nauru to Australia for the purpose of receiving appropriate mental health treatment. The applicant contended that the respondents owed or may breach a duty of care to provide healthcare services reasonably designed to meet his medical requirements, and that he suffered from a mental illness and was at risk of self-harm or suicide. The applicant further argued that he required specialist treatment that was unavailable on Nauru, and that Nauru was not an appropriate environment to provide him with effective medical treatment. The court was required to determine whether the applicant suffered from a mental illness and was at risk of self-harm or suicide, whether the respondents owed or may breach their duty of care to provide healthcare services reasonably designed to meet the applicant’s medical requirements, and whether Nauru was an appropriate environment to provide the applicant with effective medical treatment.

The court found that the applicant suffered from a mental illness and was at risk of self-harm or suicide. The court accepted the opinions of Drs O’Connor, Mares, and Coventry, who diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Disorder of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified, with suicidal ideation and intent. The court found that the applicant’s mental health symptoms, including nightmares, sleep disturbance, panic attacks, significant weight loss, stress, social withdrawal, hopelessness, withdrawal from school, impulsivity, head-banging, increased anxiety, protectiveness towards his mother, anger, numerous threats of self-harm by scratching his face, and at least one thwarted suicide attempt, were indicative of a serious mental illness. The court also found that the applicant’s risk of suicide was high and urgent, and that the respondents owed or may breach their duty of care to provide healthcare services reasonably designed to meet the applicant’s medical requirements. The court found that Nauru was not an appropriate environment to provide the applicant with effective medical treatment, as the specialist treatment he required was unavailable on Nauru.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, requiring the respondents to transfer the applicant to a place where he can receive appropriate mental health treatment. The court found that the applicant had established a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction. The court found that the applicant’s mental health was deteriorating, and that he was at significant risk of self-harm or suicide if he remained on Nauru. The court found that the respondents had an obligation to provide the applicant with healthcare services reasonably designed to meet his medical requirements, and that the specialist treatment he required was unavailable on Nauru. The court found that it was in the interests of justice to grant the interlocutory injunction to protect the applicant’s health and wellbeing.

The final orders of the court included an interlocutory injunction requiring the respondents to transfer the applicant to a place where he can receive appropriate mental health treatment, and directions for the respondents to provide the applicant with appropriate medical care while on Nauru, including access to a psychiatrist and a psychologist. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application.