Robinson v Guardianship Board No. Dcaat-98-496 Judgment No. D12

[1999] SADC 12

GERALD ROBINSON V GUARDIANSHIP BOARD

[1999] SADC D12

Judge Lee & Assessors Mrs U M Dahl & Dr J Hafner
Administrative & Disciplinary Division

1 This is an appeal against two of three orders made by the Board on 2 November 1998, namely a continuing detention order to 2 March 1999 and an administration order to 2 November 1999.  The order not under challenge is a community treatment order to 2 November 1999.
2 The appellant has a history of mental illness dating back to 1989.  He does not dispute that continuing detention and administration orders were appropriate given his condition at the time.  Rather he contends that the periods of 4 months and 12 months are too long, and that both orders should be discharged now.  With the leave of the Court, he gave evidence in support of his contention.
3 The Board made the orders in question primarily on the evidence of Dr Anton Bisazza, the applicant’s medical officer, and Dr Carmine Depasquale, a consultant psychiatrist.  The appellant suffers from a longstanding chronic paranoid schizophrenia, with associated chronic alcoholism and alcohol related brain damage.  His current period of detention was triggered by threats to neighbours with a knife and hammer and the intervention of police.  The threats were made in the context of persecutory delusions, hallucinations and alcohol abuse.  Dr Depasquale’s view was that a 6 months period of detention was needed to enable the appellant’s oral medication (Olanzopine) to be gradually reduced and intramuscular medication (Zuclopenthixol) to be introduced and adjusted to an optimum level.  Dr Depasquale’s expectation was that, after 6 months, the appellant should have stabilised sufficiently to accept supported accommodation with supervision.  Dr Bisazza was in general agreement with the treatment proposed, but suggested that the period of detention should be in the range 3 to 6 months.
4 In relation to the detention order, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had never been in hospital for longer than about 5 weeks and that the 4 month period was selected by the Board with insufficient information and insufficient regard to its obligation under s5(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1993 "to minimise restrictions upon the liberty of patients and interference with their rights, dignity and self respect, so far as is consistent with the proper protection and care of the patients themselves and with the protection of the public."
5 Our reading of the transcript of the proceedings before the Board does not bear out that submission. Although it is true that the doctors were uncertain, and in disagreement between themselves, about how long the proposed treatment regime would be required in a hospital setting, it is clear from the Board’s questioning of the doctors and from its Statement of Reasons that it was alert to its obligation under s5(1)(b). As the evidence of the doctors shows, opinions will differ on what the least restrictive period should be. The Board as a specialist tribunal conducted an extensive enquiry, and had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. However wide-reaching our powers of review might be, see Avon v Administrative Appeals Court (1997) 69 SASR 7, it is not our function to substitute a different period unless we are satisfied that the Board’s opinion was wrong. We are not satisfied that the Board’s opinion was wrong.
6 In relation to the administration order, again the submission of counsel for the appellant was that the Board had insufficient information and that it proceeded with insufficient regard to its obligation under s5(d) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 to make an order "that is the least restrictive of the person’s rights and personal autonomy as is consistent with his or her proper care and protection."
7 Again our reading of the transcript does not bear out that submission.  All of the witnesses, including the appellant’s father, spoke of the appellant’s inability to manage money and both doctors felt that the problem was due to organic brain damage.  The Board clearly took into account the possibility that the father’s assistance in the past had created a level of dependency.  Again, we are unable to say that the Board arrived at a wrong conclusion.
8 In the result, the appeal against both orders should be dismissed.