Re JLS

[2005] QMHC 10

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION: 

Re JLS [2005] QMHC 010

PARTIES:

APPEAL BY JLS AGAINST DECISION OF MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL

APPLICATION BY JLS FOR INQUIRY INTO DETENTION

PROCEEDING NO:

0059 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2005

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr D A Grant

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

Appeal dismissed. The decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 8 April 2005 is confirmed.1.   

Application for enquiry into detention dismissed.2.   

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – CONFINEMENT AND RESTRAINT OF MENTALLY ILL PERSONS AND SIMILAR ORDERS – GENERALLY – where patient detained pursuant to an involuntary treatment order on 1 June 2004 - where JLS appealed decision of Mental Health Review Tribunal to confirm involuntary treatment order – where psychiatric evidence supports that appellant still suffers from paranoid schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations and delusions of reference - whether the defendant represents an unacceptable risk to the safety of himself or others having regard to his mental illness 

MENTAL HEALTH – CONFINEMENT AND RESTRAINT OF MENTALLY ILL PERSONS AND SIMILAR ORDERS – GENERALLY – where patient no longer an in-patient – whether, on an application for an inquiry into detention pursuant to s 427 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), various requirements of the involuntary treatment order made the detention unlawful – whether an inquiry into detention can be made where patient no longer an in-patient

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 14, s 427

COUNSEL:

Mr D Shephard for the appellant/ applicant

Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/ applicant
The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health

1. JLS appeals against a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal made on 8 April 2005 to confirm an involuntary treatment order made on 1 June 2004 and he also seeks, pursuant to s 427 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), an inquiry into his detention.

1. Dealing with the latter first, there is a question as to whether such an inquiry is appropriate given that JLS is no longer an in-patient but is now in the community category for the application for his involuntary treatment order.

1. I do not find it necessary to resolve that question.  It seems to me that there is nothing in this case which would warrant such an inquiry.  Indeed, an inquiry has been carried out previously as to JLS's original detention.  He was detained pursuant to an involuntary treatment order, as I have said, on 1 June 2004.  An inquiry took place into that matter and, so far as the detention under the involuntary treatment order itself was concerned, found that it was valid.

1. JLS complains of some matters which he says make his detention unlawful.  They relate to matters such as a requirement that he give blood and the fact that detention does not allow him to follow what he describes as natural instincts relating to smoking, drinking and urinating; and he perceives that he has been punished while detained for upholding rights.

1. His matters of complaint do not of themselves give any basis for supposing that the detention itself is unlawful.  As Mr Shepherd has said, it may be that those matters of complaint are properly addressed to the mental health authorities but they do not, themselves, invalidate either the involuntary treatment order or the detention. 

1. I decline therefore to make any inquiry into his detention on the bases identified.

1. Then there is the appeal against the Mental Health Review Tribunal's refusal to revoke the involuntary treatment order. That makes relevant the treatment criteria under s 14. On the medical evidence both here and before the Mental Health Review Tribunal, those treatment criteria appear to be met.

1. JLS has a mental illness.  He does require immediate and continuing treatment which is available at the Mental Health Service which has responsibility for him.  He is likely to suffer serious, mental or physical deterioration and there is some evidence to suggest that left to himself, he would not comply with medication and that he smokes cannabis.  Indeed, the most recent report of Dr A indicates that he seems currently to be doing so and to be having auditory hallucinations and delusions of reference.

1. He has been treated in the least restrictive way possible at given times.  At the moment he is in the community.  It may be that circumstances change, but that remains to be seen.  And he has unreasonably refused proposed treatment.

1. In terms of the considerations to be taken into account on review, his mental state and psychiatric history, his social circumstances and his response to treatment and willingness to continue treatment, I am satisfied that the continuation of the involuntary treatment order is entirely warranted and is essential.

1. JLS has recently created concerns as I have indicated, as appear in Dr A's report, and throughout the duration of the order has made it apparent that he would prefer to rely on his own medicating abilities.  There is every reason to think that the continuing order is necessary to treat his illness, which, I should have mentioned, has been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia.

1. I dismiss the application and I confirm the involuntary treatment order.