Lens v Guardianship Board No. Dcaat-96-143 Judgment No. D3602

[1997] SADC 3602

Court

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Reasons For Decision of His Honour Judge Worthington, Assessor Dahl and Assessor Rofe (ex tempore)

Hearing

05/05/97.

Catchwords

Application for leave to appeal against community treatment order - facts as found by Guardianship Board disputed but applicant declines to challenge the basis other than by submissions - application dismissed.

Materials Considered

• Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 ;
• Mental Health Act 1993 , referred to.

Representation

Appellant CHRISTOPHER LENS:
Counsel: MS C. BRYSON - Solicitors: JANET E. HOWELL &; ASSOCIATES

Respondent S.A. HEALTH COMMISSION:
Counsel: MS K. J. PAROUCHAIS - Solicitors: CROWN SOLICITOR

DCAAT-96-143

Judgment No. D3602

5 May 1997

On Appeal from GUARDIANSHIP BOARD

In The Matter of THE GUARDIANSHIP &; ADMINISTRATION ACT 1993

(Administrative Appeals)

D3602

JUDGE WORTHINGTON (on behalf of the court)

MONDAY, 5 MAY 1997

REASONS FOR DECISION (ex tempore)

CHRISTOPHER LENS V GUARDIANSHIP BOARD

This is an application for leave to appeal under the Guardianship and Administration Act against a community treatment order.

We have heard submissions from Ms Bryson, for Mr Lens, and Ms Parochais, for the Health Commission.We have also read the reasons of the Guardianship Board for its decision on 14 November 1996, the transcript of those proceedings and noted that appearing before that Board, were Mr Lens himself, Ms Dingwall, Dr Adams and Dr Ko Ko Aung. This court has also referred as necessary, to the written records which were, of course, alsobefore the Board.

It appears from the evidence that Mr Lens has a long history of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and duringthe history of his treatment, there have been previous treatment orders.But in June 1996, and I refer now to the Board's reasons which summarise the position:

'the Board revoked those orders and dismissed an application for a Community Treatment Order on the basis that Mr Lens had agreed to voluntarily take medication.Shortly after this hearing it was said that Mr Lens became non-compliant and refused to take the prescribed medication for his mental illness. His level of self-care deteriorated markedly and his behavour deteriorated such that his presentation was bizarre and threatening to other persons.'

That finding was based upon and justified by, the evidence before the Board.

On 2 October 1996 Mr Lens was involved in an incident that occurred near Hindley Street in a Blyth Street carpark, leading to his apprehension by police.That incident is described more fully in the statement ofpolice officer Jacobs put before the Board.It is unnecessary to repeat the details of it except to say that he was behaving in a bizarre and frightening manner. Mr Lens disputes the accuracy of that statement through his counsel's submissions but,although he was offered the opportunityhere at this hearing, he expressly declined either to have Mr Jacobs brought before the court for questioning or cross-examination or indeed, to give evidence himself. There is nothing inherently improbable in the account of Mr Jacobs and in the circumstances, there can be no complaint that the Board was not entitled to find the facts put forward by the police,proved. There is evidence to support a causal connection between this behaviour and his illness.There is nothing of substance in the other matters put forward by Mr Lens.

The Board was satisfied, for the reasons it gave, that an order for community treatment for 12 months should be made under s.20 of the Mental Health Act.

Having considered these matters, the court is of the opinion that the Board acted correctly in making that order, and particularly, in finding that Mr Lens has chronic paranoid schizophrenia which is amenable to treatment, in finding that Mr Lens had failed to take prescribed medication and that if not required to do so, would be likely to fail to seekthe treatment and to say that without it, there is evidence to support a finding that he will not look after himself properly and, at the least, that by his behaviour, he could cause other people to be seriously disquieted or concerned for their own safety. The requirements of s.20 have been made out.

The application is therefore dismissed.I reserve the right to edit or amplify these reasons as necessary.