Daniels v Eastern Health - [2016] VSC 148

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2016 883

GARTH JASON DANIELS	Plaintiff
v
EASTERN HEALTH	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDONALD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 March 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 March 2016 (Ex tempore) (Revised 11 April 2016)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Daniels v Eastern Health
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 148

---

HABEAS CORPUS – Powers of the Mental Health Tribunal – Unsuccessful application for revocation of an inpatient treatment order – Tribunal made new inpatient treatment order with an expiry date beyond the date of the extant order – Plaintiff contended that Tribunal acted ultra vires and that involuntary detention pursuant to new order was unlawful – Application dismissed – Mental Health Act 2014 ss 5, 36, 55, 57, 60 and 182; Mental Health Tribunal Rules 2014 rr 12 and 13; Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 s 32.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A W Sanbach	Katherine Moorhouse-Perks
For the Defendant	Mr P Halley	Minter Ellison
For the Attorney-General of Victoria	Ms J Davidson	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Garth Daniels has made an application for a writ of habeas corpus. If granted, Mr Daniels is entitled to be released from involuntary detention by the defendant, Eastern Health. His detention is pursuant to an inpatient treatment order (‘ITO’) made by the Mental Health Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) on 19 October 2015. The order expires on 17 April 2016.

Mr Daniels contends that his involuntary detention is unlawful. He contends that the Tribunal had no power under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2014 (‘the Act’) to make an ITO extending beyond 6 March 2016, being the date of expiry of an order which had been made on 7 September 2015. This ITO was the subject of an unsuccessful application by Mr Daniels to revoke that ITO pursuant to s 60 of the Act.

Mr Sandbach, who appeared on behalf of Mr Daniels, accepted that where the Tribunal hears an application for revocation under s 60 of the Act and is satisfied that the treatment criteria prescribed by s 5 of the Act apply to the person who is the subject of an extant ITO, the Tribunal does have power pursuant to s 55(1) of the Act to make a new ITO.

However, he submitted that the Tribunal has no power to make an ITO the duration of which extends beyond the ITO which was the subject of the application for revocation. Thus, in circumstances where Mr Daniels was subject to an ITO made on 7 September 2015 which expired on 6 March 2016, the Tribunal had no power when hearing the application for revocation to make a new ITO extending beyond 6 March 2016.

Mr Sandbach submitted that s 55 of the Act is ambiguous because it mandates that, where an application for revocation is unsuccessful, there will be two ITOs running concurrently. First, the…

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.

Continue reading Daniels v Eastern Health

Details

AGLC: Daniels v Eastern Health [2016] VSC 148
Case: [2016] VSC 148
Decision Date: 22 March 2016 (Ex tempore) (Revised 11 April 2016)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Daniels, sought the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the respondent, Eastern Health, was unlawfully detaining them in a psychiatric facility. The dispute centred on the legality of the Mental Health Tribunal’s decision to extend an inpatient treatment order beyond the expiry date of the initial order. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the Mental Health Tribunal had the authority to extend an inpatient treatment order beyond the date of the original order and whether the extended order was lawful. The case also involved assessing whether the Tribunal's actions were consistent with the statutory provisions and whether they violated the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Mental Health Act 2014, particularly sections 5, 36, 55, 57, 60, and 182, as well as relevant rules from the Mental Health Tribunal Rules 2014. It considered the powers of the Tribunal and the requirements for making an inpatient treatment order. The court also assessed whether the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities had been contravened. After reviewing the statutory provisions and Tribunal rules, the court found that the Tribunal had the authority to extend the inpatient treatment order and that the extended order was lawful. The court concluded that the Tribunal’s actions did not exceed its powers and did not violate the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the application for the writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision to extend the inpatient treatment order was within its statutory authority and did not act beyond its powers. The court found that the involuntary detention under the extended order was lawful, and no violation of human rights occurred. The applicant's argument that the detention was unlawful was rejected. The court's decision upheld the legality of the Tribunal's actions and the continued detention under the extended inpatient treatment order.

Orders