Carroll v Chief Executive of the Southern District Health Board

[2021] NZHC 2773

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 25 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH (COMPULSORY ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT) ACT 1992, ANY REPORT OF THIS

PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT

NAME AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT ARE ANONYMISED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2021-412-000101

[2021] NZHC 2773

BETWEEN

STACEY JUNE CARROLL

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

First Respondent

AND

THE FAMILY COURT AT DUNEDIN

Second Respondent

CIV-2021-412-000102

BETWEEN

SOUTHERN DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Applicant

AND

STACEY JUNE CARROLL

Person in respect of whom the application is made

Hearing:

15 October 2021 (By way of telephone conference)

Appearances:

A Douglass for Stacey June Carroll

A Lane for Southern District Health Board

Judgment:

15 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

CARROLL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2021] NZHC 2773

[15 October 2021]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 October 2021 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

[1]    This morning I heard from the parties as to whether it was necessary to address the application for writ of habeas corpus made on behalf of Ms Carroll, when, by minute which issued on 13 October 2021, I revoked the order detaining Ms Carroll for compulsory treatment under s 30 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[2]    After hearing submissions for an hour, and explaining that I would issue my reasons decision in due course, but it would be delayed because I am on leave next week, Ms Douglass nevertheless considered it was necessary for me to issue at least a results decision on the habeas corpus application promptly.

[3]    While I said I was unpersuaded that was necessary, given the order which was said to detain her unlawfully, had been revoked, and Ms Carroll’s current status as a patient at Waikari Hospital is pursuant to a lawful process, I issue the following brief results decision on the application.

[4]The application for a writ of habeas corpus is declined. I consider:

(a)Section 14 deals with circumstances as they stand at the time the application for a writ of habeas corpus is considered. At this point in time, there is no dispute that Ms Carroll is lawfully detained at Waikari Hospital and so there is no requirement to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering her release.

(b)If I am wrong in that assumption, and the writ can issue in respect of a past unlawful detention, I consider this is a circumstance where, if the detention was unlawful (and I note the SDHB asserts Ms Carroll remained in hospital voluntarily) it falls within s 14(1A)(b) where an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus would not be the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

[5]    The reasons for my decision will issue in due course. Costs on the application are reserved.

Solicitors:

Claro, Wellington Bligh Law, Dunedin