De Bruyn v Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health

In the matter of De Bruyn v Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, the court was tasked with examining the legality of a smoke-free policy imposed by the defendant, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. The plaintiff, De Bruyn, an involuntary patient, contested the policy on several grounds, primarily arguing that it contravened various statutory provisions and infringed upon his human rights. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court had to determine whether the smoke-free policy was within the statutory authority of the hospital, as granted by the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). Additionally, the court considered whether the Tobacco Act 1987 (Vic) implied a statutory right to smoke, and if the smoke-free policy engaged the plaintiff's human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). Specifically, the court examined if the ban violated the patient’s right to be treated with dignity, the right to be treated appropriately for someone not convicted of an offence, and the right not to be subjected to compulsory medical treatment. The court also assessed whether a person found not guilty by reason of insanity is considered 'detained without charge' under the Charter, and whether the hospital had appropriately considered the relevant human rights in accordance with the statutory guidelines.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the smoke-free policy was within the statutory power of the hospital as authorised by the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). The court ruled that the Tobacco Act 1987 (Vic) did not imply a statutory right to smoke, and that the policy did not infringe upon the plaintiff's human rights as outlined in the Charter. The court concluded that the policy was a reasonable measure to ensure the health and safety of all patients and staff, and was consistent with the statutory obligation to consider human rights under the Charter. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding.