GFR
[2023] QCAT 213
•23 May 2023
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
GFR [2023] QCAT 213
PARTIES:
In an application about matters concerning GFR
APPLICATION NO:
GAA1250-23
MATTER TYPE:
Guardianship and administration matters for adults
REASONS DELIVERED ON:
23 May 2023
HEARING DATE:
11 May 2023
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Kanowski
ORDER:
The residential addresses of [GFR’s mother, father and sister] are not to be disclosed to GFR.
CATCHWORDS:
HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – where persons proposed for appointment as guardians and administrators seek confidentiality order preventing disclosure of their addresses to the person with impaired capacity – whether order necessary to avoid serious harm
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 6C, s 103, s 104, s 109
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 29(1), s 31(1)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
GFR’s mother, father and sister attended the hearing by videoconference. They were self-represented.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
This proceeding concerns a man in his late thirties who, for privacy reasons, I will refer to only as GFR. GFR’s mother applied to the tribunal for the appointment of guardians and administrators for GFR, and for a confidentiality order.
The applications were heard by me on 11 May 2023. I appointed GFR’s mother, father and sister as guardians and administrators for GFR. I also made a confidentiality order, as sought by GFR’s mother, prohibiting the disclosure of the residential addresses of the appointees to GFR. I gave oral reasons for the decision to appoint guardians and administrators. I now give written reasons, as required by section 113(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (‘Guardianship and Administration Act’), for the confidentiality order.
Background
GFR has hebephrenic schizophrenia. He is currently facing charges of unlawful wounding and attempted murder, arising from separate incidents. He is detained at a secure mental health facility. The unlawful wounding charge has been referred to the Mental Health Court, and it is expected that the attempted murder charge will be similarly referred. While GFR is not currently able to leave detention, he may in the future be released from detention or granted periods of leave.
It is apparent that GFR’s parents and sisters remain supportive of him, but they say they would be fearful if GFR had their home addresses. I accept that, as well as the following background they gave. In the past, GFR has gone to the family home in a psychotic state and attempted to assault his father or actually assaulted him. On one occasion he then threw a boulder through a window of a car belonging to the family as he left. There were occasions when GFR’s mother locked herself in a room while she rang the police, who then arrived and took GFR to hospital. These incidents were not motivated by anger but caused by paranoid delusions incorporating family members. The family moved after the worst incident, and have not informed GFR of their home addresses since then. They visit him, rather than allowing him to visit them. Although it is almost 15 years since they moved, they remain concerned because GFR’s condition has worsened in the meantime.
The tribunal’s registry sent GFR redacted copies of all relevant documents prior to the hearing. The redactions were to give effect to a pre-hearing confidentiality order made by the tribunal preventing disclosure of any contact details of the appointees.
‘Any contact details’ was broader than the terms of the application. GFR’s parents and sister confirmed at the hearing that they do not seek to prevent GFR from having their post office box addresses, phone numbers or email addresses. They seek only to prevent him having their residential addresses, which are included in documents filed in the tribunal.
The pre-hearing confidentiality order was automatically vacated at the start of the hearing.[1]
[1]Guardianship and Administration Act, s 110(2).
In considering whether to make a confidentiality order, the tribunal must take as the basis of its consideration that each active party is entitled to access a document or other information before the tribunal that is credible, relevant and significant to an issue in the proceeding.[2] GFR is an active party.[3] Each active party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, including opportunity to access documents unless the right to access is displaced by a confidentiality order.[4]
[2]Ibid, s 104(1)(a).
[3]Ibid, s 119(a).
[4]Ibid, s 103.
The tribunal can make a confidentiality order if satisfied, relevantly, that it is necessary, and only to the extent necessary, to avoid serious harm to a person.[5]
[5]Ibid, s 109(1).
Each active party has standing to be heard in relation to the making of a confidentiality order.[6] GFR sought to attend the hearing, by videoconference. However, unfortunately, there was an unforeseen delay of almost half an hour in the hearing starting because of technical difficulties. By that time, GFR had become agitated, and had returned to the ward. He therefore did not participate in the hearing, and so I do not know his attitude toward the application for a confidentiality order.
[6]Ibid, s 111.
In deciding the application for a confidentiality order, I must apply the general principles set out in section 6C of the Guardianship and Administration Act. Relevantly, and in summary, these require me to take into account GFR’s inherent dignity and worth, and his equal and inalienable rights;[7] to take into account the importance of maintaining his existing supportive relationships;[8] and to seek the views, wishes and preferences of GFR.[9]
[7]General principle 2(1).
[8]General principle 4(1).
[9]General principle 8(4).
Human rights recognised in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘Human Rights Act’) are also relevant. GFR is also entitled to a fair hearing in the tribunal.[10] On the other hand, in considering the interests of GFR’s relatives, it is relevant to note that every person has a right to security.[11]
[10]Human Rights Act, s 31(1).
[11]Ibid, s 29(1).
Why was a confidentiality order made?
The residential addresses of the appointees are contained in applications or covering letters. Each of those documents were credible, relevant and significant to issues in the proceedings. As explained above, I must take as the basis of my consideration that GFR is entitled to see those documents. This is integral to affording a fair hearing. Further, as active parties are usually entitled to see relevant documents in full, it would afford maximum respect to GFR’s dignity and worth to permit him the same access to documents as other active parties, such as the Public Trustee of Queensland and the Public Guardian. On the other hand, disclosure of the addresses to GFR would, I accept, lessen the appointees’ sense of security. They would return to living in fear. This would also impede their readiness to provide ongoing support to GFR.
GFR has already been sent the documents in question, with the addresses (and some other contact details) redacted. I do not consider that this has materially affected his ability to present his case. The exact residential addresses of the appointees have no apparent bearing on any issue including whether those persons are appropriate for appointment. It is relevant whether the appointees are ‘available and accessible’[12] to GFR. However, for many years they have remained in regular contact with GFR despite him not knowing their residential addresses. He is able to contact them, and they are able to contact and visit him, even if he cannot visit them at home.
[12]Guardianship and Administration Act, s 15(1)(f).
I am persuaded that the proposed confidentiality order is necessary to avoid serious harm to the appointees: the serious harm being physical or property damage, potentially, as well as a constant and well-founded fear that GFR might show up and inflict violence or damage. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it is appropriate to make a confidentiality order.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I have made a confidentiality order in the terms proposed.
0
0
2