Hobbins v Goulburn Valley Area Mental Health Service

[2000] VSC 67

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

No. 4394 of 2000

ANTHONY JOHN HOBBINS	Plaintiff
v.
GOULBURN VALLEY AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 FEBRUARY 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 FEBRUARY 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HOBBINS v. GOULBURN VALLEY AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 67

---

CATCHWORDS:      Interlocutory injunction pending determination of appeal by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Inappropriate to make order sought.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In Person
For the Defendant	P. McCaffrey	Phillips Fox

HIS HONOUR:

1. The effect of the medical evidence presently before the court is that the plaintiff suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.  I refer in that connection to paragraph 2 of the affidavit of Dr Ravi Bhat sworn 29 February 2000 and the content of Exhibit NAF1 to the affidavit of Natalie Anne Franks, also sworn 29 February 2000.  Exhibit NAF1 sets out the reasons for a determination made by the Mental Health Review Board (the Board) on 8 February 2000 relating to the plaintiff.

1. On 13 January last the plaintiff was placed on a community treatment order pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1986. The order requires the plaintiff to attend the Seymour Community Mental Health Service once every two weeks for an intramuscular injection of 100 milligrams of Zuclopenthixol. Zuclopenthixol is an anti-psychotic medication.

1. For reasons which are not particularly clear to me at the moment, on 28 January the plaintiff was taken into custody and placed in the Shepparton Hospital, where he remained an in-patient until 9 February.

1. The plaintiff appealed against the community treatment order to the Mental Health Review Board.  On 8 February the Board rejected the plaintiff's appeal.  In doing so the Board gave lengthy reasons for its decision, including its reasons why the criteria in s.8(1) of the Act had been met so far as the plaintiff was concerned.  In particular, it found that the plaintiff appeared to be mentally ill, that his mental illness required immediate treatment to lessen the ill-effects which the illness caused, and that there were significant risks of harm to the plaintiff by way of self-neglect if he did not receive treatment for his illness.

1. On 16 February the plaintiff lodged a notice of appeal against the Board's decision with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).  There is to be a directions hearing in relation to the plaintiff's appeal on 2 March.

1. Pursuant, of course, to the original community treatment order, the plaintiff is still required to present himself each fortnight to the Seymour Community Health Service to have the injection to which I earlier referred.

1. On 22 February the plaintiff filed an originating motion in the court in which he seeks an order that the defendant, the Goulburn Valley Area Mental Health Service, be restrained from administering or causing to be administered any medication to the plaintiff pending the hearing and determination of his appeal to VCAT.

1. I now have before me a summons filed in the court by the plaintiff in which he seeks a similar order.  The plaintiff maintains that he should not be required to submit himself for the injections in question because he does not know the full nature of the medication he is being given by means of the injection and what effect that medication may have on him.  I should also add that the plaintiff denies that he meets the criteria spelled out in s.8(2) of the Act. 

1. So far as that latter aspect is concerned, clearly I am in no position to make a determination in relation to it.  That must await the hearing of the plaintiff's appeal to VCAT.  The only question which I must determine at the present time is whether in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to grant the order that the plaintiff seeks pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.

1. Dr Bhat has sworn that he is the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist.  In the affidavit he has sworn in relation to the matter Dr Bhat has said:

"7.In my opinion, if the plaintiff does not receive his injection of Zuclopenthixol on 8 March 2000 [which is the next date on which the injection is to be administered to the plaintiff], it is likely that the following will occur:

7.1The plaintiff's mental illness, which causes significant disturbance of thought and mood, is likely to be exacerbated.

7.2The exacerbation of the plaintiff's mental illness means that there is a significant risk of harm to the plaintiff likely to occur by way of self-neglect.

7.3The plaintiff's reliance on river water for washing and drinking, his inadequate diet, his beliefs in relation to infection and the spread of this infection are likely to be exacerbated and therefore are likely to lead to chronic physical and mental ill-health.

7.4There is likely to be further isolation from the community and the members of the plaintiff's family."

1. In the light of those matters, and I should say in the light of the content of the Shepparton Hospital medical records relating to the plaintiff which I took the opportunity to peruse when this matter was before me on 24 February, I consider that it would be quite inappropriate for this court to make any order of the type presently sought by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff's appeal is now in the hands of VCAT and I consider that, for the present at all events, that is where the matter should remain.

1. Accordingly the plaintiff's originating motion and summons will both be dismissed.

---