In the matter of FG

In the matter of FG, the dispute involved the interpretation of section 58(2)(b)(i) of the Mental Health Act. The applicant, FG, was seeking to appeal against a psychiatric treatment order made under the Act. The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "refuses" within the context of section 58(2)(b)(i). This section mandates that for a psychiatric treatment order to be made, a person must be suffering from a severe mental illness and must refuse to receive the treatment, care, or support offered. The court had to determine what constitutes a refusal under the Act, by what date the refusal must be assessed, what might be refused, how refusal could be evidenced, and the reasons behind the refusal.

The court examined the ordinary meaning of the term "refuses" and concluded that it should be interpreted in its ordinary English sense, meaning to decline to accept or express a determination not to receive something offered. However, the court also noted that in the context of section 58(2)(b)(i), refusal should be assessed objectively based on the person's actions or words, rather than their subjective mental state or capacity to make an informed decision. The court considered that the refusal must be assessed at the time when the decision about the psychiatric treatment order is made. The refusal could include any aspect of treatment, care, or support offered to the person. The court held that the refusal must be evident through the person's words or actions and that it should not be influenced by the person's capacity to make an informed decision, as section 58(2)(b)(i) applies where the person lacks the decision-making capacity to consent to the treatment.

In confirming the decision of the original Tribunal, the court held that the applicant's refusal to receive treatment, care, or support was evident and objective, and that the history of whether the person received or refused to receive such treatment was relevant to determining whether section 58(2)(b)(i) was satisfied. The court also noted that the context and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act should be considered when interpreting the term "refuses". The Tribunal's decision to make a psychiatric treatment order was confirmed, and the reasons for the decision were ordered to be published.