Re Kg

[2010] QMHC 8

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re KG [2010] QMHC 8

PARTIES:

APPEAL FROM THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF KG

PROCEEDING:

No 0041 of 2010

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2010

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING
 PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr FT Varghese
Dr EN McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where Attorney-General appeals decision of Mental Health Review Tribunal confirming limited community treatment in relation to two charges of serious assault – where Attorney-General appeals condition of limited community treatment in respect of continuous absences up to three days and nights – whether appeal should be allowed or dismissed.

COUNSEL:

Mr S Crofton for the Defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

Mr K Parrott for the Attorney-General

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health

Crown Law for the Attorney-General

PHILIPPIDES J:

1. This is an appeal against the Mental Health Review Tribunal decision of 4 December 2009 confirming a forensic order and approving limited community treatment.

1. I note that the patient has a recurring psychiatric history.  He also has alcohol amnesic syndrome and other ailments which require care.

1. He was made the subject of a forensic order with limited community treatment being approved on 9 June 2009 in relation to two charges of serious assault which were referred to the Mental Health Court.

1. The Mental Health Review Tribunal reviewed the forensic order on 4 December 2009 and that is the decision that is being appealed.  The limited community treatment approved by the Tribunal allowed for a six-step graduated approach to leave. 

1. The appeal concerns only paragraph 1(f) of the limited community treatment approved by the Tribunal.  That paragraph concerns limited community treatment in the nature of continuous absences up to three days and nights.

1. The patient has had escorted leave and has progressed to accessing single overnight leave which has been accessed on one night per week over the last three weeks.  The access accorded to the patient is at a hostel which has a manager who knows the patient and there is also security.  Therefore, the placement has a reasonably high degree of supervision.

1. The patient is reviewed on his return to the hospital.  He is also the subject of a Guardianship order so that he has no control of his finances.

1. We have heard evidence from Dr O'Sullivan who also provided a report and it appears that the overnight leave has been accessed without any difficulties.  Dr O'Sullivan gave evidence as to the extent of the health problems faced by the patient and also indicated that he will require placement in a nursing home eventually. 

1. That time is unknown, but in the interim what is being proposed is, that given the satisfactory progress of the recent occasions of overnight leave, the patient will be progressed to having two nights leave.

1. The appeal itself appears to have been brought on a misguided basis that the continuous absences of up to three days and nights, was permitted with an eye to the patient accessing an HASP package and that it was not really being dictated by the treatment needs of the patient.

1. That view is clearly erroneous given the evidence of Dr O'Sullivan.  The leave provided for in paragraph 1(f) of the Tribunal's orders is one which the treating team endorsed irrespective of any package that might be obtained for the patient, and as what was appropriate for the patient's own treatment.

1. Indeed, it appears that the placement in the hospital is quite inappropriate on a long term basis and that is what has motivated the treating team to progress the patient in the manner that has occurred.

1. I note that all the evidence indicates that the treating team has adopted a quite cautious and gradual approach to the LCT and has carefully looked at the risk issues.

1. In the circumstances, I do not consider that there is any basis for faulting the approach of the Tribunal.  In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal is confirmed.