CT, Re [2007] QMHC 38

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re CT [2007] QMHC 038 PARTIES: APPEAL BY CT AGAINST A DECISION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL PROCEEDING: No 0246 of 2006 DELIVERED ON: 17 April 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 April 2007 JUDGE: Philippides J ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr J M Lawrence Dr J F Wood FINDINGS AND ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – CONFINEMENT AND RESTRAINT OF MENTALLY ILL PERSONS AND SIMILAR ORDERS – GENERALLY – where appeal against a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal confirming involuntary treatment order in respect of the appellant – where appellant previously diagnosed with delusional disorder and differential diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia – where Tribunal determined that appellant posed risk to his sister if treatment was ceased and that there was no less restrictive way of ensuring appellant received appropriate treatment other than the imposition of an ITO – where appellant submitted that he was not mentally ill or delusional and that the involuntary treatment order was dangerous and burdensome – whether the decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal to confirm the involuntary treatment order should be set aside Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 14, s 191 COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf J Tate for the Director of Mental Health SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health PHILIPPIDES J: [1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, dated 16 October 2006, confirming an Involuntary Treatment Order in respect of the appellant. [2] The grounds of appeal are stated as being that the patient is not mentally ill, but functioning normally. The appellant says that the ITO is interfering with his -- 1 of 2 -- 2 enjoyment and functioning and that it is interfering in a dangerous and burdensome way; he maintains that he is not delusional, that the treatment under the ITO is not doing him any good and, in fact, that it is doing him harm. [3] The ITO was instigated upon assessment by two psychiatrists at the Prince Charles Hospital, who formed the opinion that the appellant was suffering from a delusional disorder, with a differential diagnosis being made of paranoid schizophrenia. The treating team was very concerned about a number of threats against the appellant’s sister, which were made by the appellant. It appears that the appellant maintains that he and his mother were being poisoned with mercury by his sister. He also maintains that his sister importuned his brother to take part in the poisoning. [4] The appellant maintains these allegations before the Court today. The assessment by the Tribunal was that the allegations were unfounded and delusional and the Tribunal concluded that the treatment criteria in section 14 of the Mental Health Act 2000 were satisfied. The Tribunal also had regard to the requirements of section 191 of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant suffered from a delusional disorder, that the appellant required immediate treatment, which was available through the specified Mental Health Services available to the appellant, that there was a risk of harm to the appellant’s sister, if treatment was ceased, and that there was no less restrictive way of ensuring the appellant received appropriate treatment other than the imposition of an ITO. [5] The Tribunal also concluded that whilst the appellant had the capacity to consent, he would unreasonably refuse treatment if the ITO was revoked. The Tribunal considered the appellant’s psychiatric history, his social circumstances, his response to treatment, and willingness to continue treatment in concluding that the ITO ought to remain in place. [6] The Court has heard today that the appellant complains of adverse consequences because of his treatment under the ITO. It is concerning that the appellant expresses difficulties with the treatment administered. However, there is nothing to suggest that the treatment has any clinically adverse consequences. Both Dr Wood and Dr Lawrence have advised the appellant through the Court that the difficulties he refers to be taken up with the treating doctor and I would also urge that course be taken, but there is nothing in the material before me to indicate that clinically there is any reason to desist in treatment. [7] I can see no reason to find that the Tribunal erred in its decision and in those circumstances the appeal is dismissed and the decision is upheld and confirmed. -- 2 of 2 --