JFL

The case involved an application for a guardianship order for a person identified as JFL, who resides in a memory support unit with a coded keypad lock system in place. The legal dispute centred around whether a guardianship order should be made, whether the use of the coded keypad lock system constitutes a restrictive practice, and whether the proposed use of the system could amount to "total restraint." The matter was heard by the court, which had to decide on the appropriate functions for the guardian, including whether the guardian should be appointed with an accommodation function or a restrictive practices function, and whether JFL requires advance care planning.

The court examined the Quality of Care Principles 2014 (Cth) and the tort of false imprisonment to determine if the use of a coded keypad lock system could be considered a restrictive practice. The court concluded that the use of the coded keypad lock system could amount to "total restraint" and needed to be justified. The court found that the use of the coded keypad lock system was necessary to prevent JFL from harming herself or others and that the system was used as a last resort. The court also found that the use of chemical restraint was necessary in certain situations to ensure JFL's safety and well-being.

The court appointed the Public Guardian as the guardian for JFL, with specific functions related to medical and dental consent, restrictive practices, and advance care planning. The court imposed conditions on the guardian, including taking reasonable steps to involve JFL in decision-making and ensuring that restrictive practices are used only as a last resort and in accordance with a care and services plan. The court made a continuing guardianship order for a period of three years from 15 December 2020, with the guardian having custody of JFL to the extent necessary to carry out the functions specified in the order.

The court's final orders included making a guardianship order for JFL, appointing the Public Guardian as the guardian, and specifying the functions and conditions of the guardianship order. The guardian was given the authority to make substitute decisions about medical and dental treatment, give or withhold consent for the use of restrictive practices, and ensure that restrictive practices are used only as a last resort and in accordance with a care and services plan. The order also included provisions for the guardian to involve JFL in decision-making and ensure that their views are considered before making significant decisions.