Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

This matter concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia against an order made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). SACAT had granted the appellant leave to apply for internal review of a decision, but ultimately affirmed the original decision. The original decision, made by a Senior Member and a Psychiatrist Member of SACAT, imposed a Level 2 Community Treatment Order over the appellant pursuant to section 16 of the *Mental Health Act 2009* (SA). This order followed a hearing where SACAT considered psychiatric evidence and evidence from the appellant.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court revolved around the interpretation and application of section 16 of the *Mental Health Act 2009* (SA). Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether the appellant had impaired decision-making capacity in relation to his mental illness, and whether there was no less restrictive means than a community treatment order for ensuring his appropriate treatment. The appellant’s central contention was that while he had a mental illness requiring medication, he believed he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder rather than schizophrenia, and that he should be permitted to take medication voluntarily.

The Court noted that a referral by the Registrar under rule 13.3(1) of the Supreme Court Rules could represent an early stage at which to prevent the waste of court resources. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the unfairness to a litigant if filing is permitted when it is highly likely that the appeal documents, or the appeal itself, will be struck out or dismissed, particularly where a filing fee has been paid. The Court's reasoning focused on the statutory criteria for making a Level 2 Community Treatment Order, which requires satisfaction that a person has a mental illness, requires treatment for their own protection or the protection of others, has impaired decision-making capacity regarding treatment, and that no less restrictive means are available. The appellant's belief about his diagnosis and his willingness to take medication voluntarily were central to the assessment of these criteria.