Re MMD

[2009] QMHC 14

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re MMD [2009] QMHC 14

PARTIES:

APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL

MMD
Appellant

DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH
Respondent by Election

PROCEEDING NO:

No 0168 of 2009

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

9 September 2009

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J M Lawrence
Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDERS

1.   The Appeal is dismissed;

2.   The decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – Where defendant seeks to appeal decision and Involuntary Treatment Order of the Mental Health Review Tribunal – whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed.

COUNSEL:

The Defendant appeared on his own behalf
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
W Isdale for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

ANN LYONS J:

1. This is an appeal by MMD of a decision of the MHRT.  The appellant was placed on an involuntary treatment order on 20 March 2009 and the Mental Health Review Tribunal reviewed that involuntary treatment order on 25 May 2009 and the Tribunal confirmed the involuntary treatment order.  This is now the appellant’s appeal against that decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

1. He has set out in his notice of appeal the grounds upon which he bases his appeal.  They essentially are that it is not his fault that the Tribunal did not believe the truth.  He was in the Australian Defence Force and will provide the record.  He then sets out concerns he has about the Director of Mental Health and then further reiterates that he has told the truth and he asks where his previous psychiatrists were.

1. Now, turning to the decision of the Mental Health Tribunal, it is clear that the Mental Health Review Tribunal considered information from the treating team at that hearing.  They considered that the appellant has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and that he was first diagnosed in 1999.  That he was assessed at that time as suffering from psychotic symptoms for an extended period of time and those symptoms partially resolved when he was on treatment.

1. However, the appellant then ceased taking the medication.  The appellant lives with his sister and he came to the attention of Mental Health Services in March 2009 following concerns about his mental health following the cessation of his treatment.  In particular, it would seem, he became very unwell in the week leading up to that examination order in March.

1. On 29 April 2009 the appellant was examined by a treating psychiatrist and it was clear that he considered that the appellant had a well systemised delusional system with grandiose and persecutory themes.  He also said that the appellant has ongoing issues with medication compliance and he is impulsive in acting out his delusional ideas.

1. At that hearing the Tribunal also considered information from the appellant and it set out what that information was in its reasons.  However, the Tribunal said that its role was to determine whether all of the treatment criteria, as set out in s 14.1 of the Act, applied to the appellant and whether the involuntary treatment order should be confirmed.

1. The Tribunal assessed all of the evidence and their conclusion was that all of the treatment criteria were met in that they considered that the appellant had a mental illness which required immediate treatment.  The treatment was available at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and because of his illness the appellant’s risk was such that he could cause harm to himself or others and he was likely to suffer serious mental or physical deterioration and he lacked capacity to consent to the treatment.

1. Now, today, in this appeal, the appellant has once again given evidence to the Court.  The Court has also heard evidence from Dr Saraf, the treating psychiatrist.  Once again, the treating psychiatrist has indicated that in his view all the treatment criteria are met.  The appellant has a mental illness of schizophrenia.  He believes active treatment is required because the appellant has acute symptoms.

1. He also indicated that the Princess Alexandra Hospital can provide the treatment and that there was an imminent risk of harm to others, particularly his family, because the appellant acted on persecutory and grandiose symptoms.  He also indicated the appellant was likely to suffer a relapse if the condition was not treated.  He stated there was no less restrictive way of the appellant receiving treatment other than an involuntary treatment order.

1. He also considered the appellant lacked capacity to consent.  He outlined the current treatment the appellant was receiving and that he has visited every day and that he was seen by Dr Saraf every four to six weeks.  Dr Saraf indicated he saw the appellant on 5 August and that at that time he was acutely psychotic.  He believes that the appellant needs to stay under the involuntary treatment order.

1. Now, it is clear that this Court, when considering the appeal, can look at the evidence that was before the Tribunal as well as the facts as they are today.  Having considered all of that material it is quite clear that the Tribunal when it made its decision had a full basis upon which to make the decision that it did.  Clearly, on the basis of the material before the Court today, it is also clear that all of the treatment criteria are met and accordingly an involuntary treatment order is required.  Accordingly, I will confirm the decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed.