RJC [2006] WASAT 279

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2006] WASAT 279
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:790/2006	Heard:	20 AND 21 JUNE 2006
Coram:	MS F CHILD (MEMBER)	Delivered:	12/09/06
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Public Advocate appointed limited guardian
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RJC
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration – Psychiatric illness – Patient discharged from involuntary status under the Mental Health Act 1996 but detained in hospital – Need for a guardian to decide accommodation and services and to consent to medical treatment – Appointment of the Public Advocate as guardian no other person suitable or willing
Legislation:	Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendant's Act 1996 (WA) Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 43(1)(c), s 44(5), s 45, s 119, s 119(3), s 119(3a), s 119(3)(d), Part 5 Div 3 Mental Health Act 1996 (WA), s 26, s 26(1)(b), s 26(1)(b)(i), s 26(1)(c), s 26(1)(d), s 58, s 58(1)(c), s 59, s 110, s 169 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 78
Case References:	AB [2005] WASAT 303 BTO [2004] WAGAB 2 DON [2005] WASAT 193 KD [2005] WASAT 248 MW [2005] WASAT 205 Re BCB; Application for Guardianship Order (2002) SR (WA) 338 Re LGW [2004] WAGAB 4 Nil

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : RJC [2006] WASAT 279 MEMBER : MS F CHILD (MEMBER) HEARD : 20 AND 21 JUNE 2006 DELIVERED : 12 SEPTEMBER 2006 FILE NO/S : GAA 790 of 2006 BETWEEN : RJC

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration – Psychiatric illness – Patient discharged from involuntary status under the Mental Health Act 1996 but detained in hospital – Need for a guardian to decide accommodation and services and to consent to medical treatment – Appointment of the Public Advocate as guardian no other person suitable or willing

Legislation:

Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendant's Act 1996 (WA)

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 43(1)(c), s 44(5), s 45, s 119, s 119(3), s 119(3a), s 119(3)(d), Part 5 Div 3
Mental Health Act 1996 (WA), s 26, s 26(1)(b), s 26(1)(b)(i), s 26(1)(c), s 26(1)(d), s 58, s 58(1)(c), s 59, s 110, s 169
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 78

(Page 2)

Result:

Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : No appearance

Solicitors:

Represented Person : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

AB [2005] WASAT 303
BTO [2004] WAGAB 2
DON [2005] WASAT 193
KD [2005] WASAT 248
MW [2005] WASAT 205
Re BCB; Application for Guardianship Order (2002) SR (WA) 338
Re LGW [2004] WAGAB 4

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 The State Administrative Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as the guardian of a man with a long-term mental illness, who at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading RJC

Details

AGLC: RJC [2006] WASAT 279
Case: [2006] WASAT 279
Decision Date: 12 SEPTEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the appointment of a guardian for a patient, referred to as RJC, who had been discharged from involuntary status under the Mental Health Act 1996 but was still detained in hospital due to a psychiatric illness. The patient required a guardian to make decisions about accommodation and services and to consent to medical treatment. The Public Advocate sought the appointment as the patient's guardian, with no other suitable or willing person available for the role.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the Public Advocate should be appointed as the patient's guardian. The court needed to consider the statutory framework provided by the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the patient's medical condition, and the availability of alternative guardians. The court had to determine if the Public Advocate was the most appropriate person to act in the patient's best interests, given the circumstances.

The court found that the statutory requirements for appointing a guardian were met and that the Public Advocate was indeed the most suitable person for the role. The patient's psychiatric condition and the need for ongoing medical treatment meant that decisions about accommodation and services had to be made by someone with the necessary authority and expertise. The court noted that no other person was suitable or willing to act as the guardian. Consequently, the court appointed the Public Advocate as the limited guardian of the patient.

The final orders of the court were that the Public Advocate be appointed as the limited guardian of RJC, with the authority to make decisions regarding accommodation, services, and medical treatment on behalf of the patient. This decision was made in the best interests of the patient, considering their current medical condition and the absence of any other suitable guardian.

Orders

Orders of the court

Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.