SZH

SZH applied for a guardianship order to be made in relation to them due to a diagnosis of an alcohol-related brain disorder and frontal lobe damage. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to determine whether a guardianship order should be made, if so, what functions should be allocated to the guardian, and what conditions should apply to the order.

The legal issues before the court included whether a coded keypad lock system used in a residential aged care facility constituted a restrictive practice, and whether it could amount to "total restraint." The court also needed to consider the tort of false imprisonment and the Quality of Care Principles 2014 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to determine whether the guardian should be appointed with an accommodation function or a restrictive practices function, and if the subject person required advance care planning.

The court found that a guardianship order should be made in relation to SZH. The Public Guardian was appointed as the guardian, with a continuing guardianship order for a period of three years. The guardian was given a services function to make decisions about services to be provided to SZH, and a restrictive practices function to give or withhold consent for the use of physical restraint. The court imposed conditions on the use of physical restraint, requiring regular monitoring and review of SZH for signs of distress or harm.

The court determined that the use of a coded keypad lock system did not constitute a restraint, and that the placement of a bed against a wall did not amount to a restraint. The court found that SZH required advance care planning, and that the guardian should be appointed with a services function, as well as a restrictive practices function. The court considered the relationship between restrictive practices and the Aged Care Act, and the need for a services function due to SZH being an NDIS participant.