Islam v Director General of the Justice and Community

[2022] ACTSC 222

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Islam v Director General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 222

Hearing Date:

24, 26 August 2022

DecisionDate:

26 August 2022

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

(a)        Direct that the notice of discontinuance dated 25 August 2022 be filed in court;

(b)        The appeal CA 29 of 2022 is discontinued;

(c)        The application in proceeding on 18 August 2022 is discontinued;

(d)        There is no order made as to costs.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST ACAT DECISION – Where appellant appeals against Psychiatric Treatment Order – appeal discontinued

Legislation Cited:

Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) s 62

Parties:

Isa Islam ( Appellant)

Director General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate ( Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

K Law-Jamieson ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

ACT Government Solicitor ( Respondent)

File Number(s):

SCA 29 of 2022

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Before:  Presidential Member G McCarty, Senior Member B Wagstaff

Date of Decision:          30 June 2022

Court File Number(s):   MH 242/2022

Elkaim J:

1. I am dealing with an application in proceeding lodged in the court on 18 August 2022. The application seeks the following orders:

(i)That the plaintiff be granted an injunction against the respondent, preventing the respondent from forcibly moving the appellant out of jail to another institution, and preventing the respondent from forcibly applying medications to the appellant against his will, until the notice of appeal has been heard.

(ii)Any other orders the court considers appropriate.

1. The applicant is an inmate at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (the AMC).

1. The appeal proceedings referred to in the requested order related to a Psychiatric Treatment Order (PTO) made in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) on 30 June 2022.

1. There is a notice of appeal from the PTO but it does not seem to have been either signed or filed.

1. The PTO seems to be based upon a Tribunal Review Report dated 22 June 2022. The Report has been prepared by a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Le, at the request of a Dr Patterson.

1. The request and report are in the form of a questionnaire, parts of which do not seem to have been completed. The treatment sought from ACAT was described as follows:

The treatment proposed is the administration of an antipsychotic medication, likely as a long-acting injectable initially, although oral medications may be suitable at a later point in time. This treatment is proposed for administration within a secure psychiatric hospital to provide appropriate care.

1. The administration of the medication and the movement to a psychiatric hospital are the two actions which the applicant wishes to prevent. He does not wish to have the medication and he does not wish to be transferred from the AMC to a psychiatric hospital.

1. The PTO which is the subject of the appeal, makes the following orders:

(i)The Tribunal makes a Psychiatric Treatment Order in relation to Isa Islam.

(ii)Isa Islam must comply with any determination made by the Chief Psychiatrist or delegate under section 62 of the Mental Health Act 2015.

(iii)Unless sooner revoked, this order has effect for six months from 30 June 2022.

1. There is no affidavit in support of the application. The grounds of appeal state:

(a) That the respondent’s behaviour towards the appellant did not afford the appellant procedural fairness.

(b) That the respondent’s behaviour towards the appellant was inconsistent with the ACT Corrections Management Act 2007 and the ACT Human Rights Act, 2004.

1. Under the notice of appeal the applicant seeks declaratory relief and the setting aside of the PTO.

1. The matter came before me on 24 August 2022 but unfortunately due to an administrative error, not the fault of the applicant, the applicant was not present at court. I accordingly adjourned the matter until today. Earlier today the registry received a notice from the applicant which, due to some technical difficulties, could not be filed.

1. The notice is essentially a notice of discontinuance. The applicant states in terms that he “moves to discontinue this appeal and the associated applications in proceeding”.

1. I did not require the applicant to appear today because I am aware that he has, perhaps due to his mental health difficulties, been reluctant to come to court or even appear on the audio-visual system (AVL).

1. I think it would not be in the applicant’s interests for me to force him to appear, either in person or by AVL.

1. A copy of the notice was given to the solicitor for the respondent who indicated that the respondent agrees to the discontinuance and makes no application for costs.

1. I make the following orders:

(a)Direct that the notice of discontinuance dated 25 August 2022 be filed in court;

(b)The appeal CA 29 of 2022 is discontinued;

(c)The application in proceeding on 18 August 2022 is discontinued;

(d)There is no order made as to costs.

I certify that the preceding sixteen [16] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: