New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compulsory treatment orders

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2022

GORDON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZCA 245

Citation

[2022] NZCA 245
Court

Court of Appeal

Although exceptional circumstances existed in relation to the first cause of action because applicants seek to challenge this Court's Waitematā Health decision, the Court declined to transfer the proceeding: the discretionary factors in s59(4) favoured retention in the High Court since the Court of Appeal is primarily appellate, the issues are wide-ranging and likely require factual development (discovery, evidence, interventions and interlocutory applications), and comprehensive legislative reform is underway which reduces the need for immediate appellate resolution.
20 Sept 2021

REYNOLDS v FAMILY COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2021] NZHC 2465

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2465
Court

High Court

The Court held that delegating the administrative task of placing applications into Court-provided hearing slots to DAMHS was lawful and not an unlawful delegation of judicial power; there was insufficient basis to judicially review the scheduling as a failure to act "as soon as practicable" on the facts; however, the Court erred in law by refusing to hear the applicant's s16 review on the ground that a s14 certificate and a pending Part 2 application rendered the s16 application "out of time" — issuance of s14 does not automatically preclude a s16 hearing and the applicant was entitled to be…
17 Apr 2020

AB v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2020] NZHC 756

Citation

[2020] NZHC 756
Court

High Court

The application for habeas corpus was dismissed because the respondent had followed the statutory Mental Health Act procedures demonstrating a lawful basis for detention and because challenges to a finding of mental disorder are appropriately determined within the Mental Health Act framework rather than by habeas corpus.
29 Sept 2017

CARTER v CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2017] NZHC 2398

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 745
Court

High Court

The application was struck out under HCR rr5.35A–5.35B because it was a plain abuse of process: it failed to comply with Part 18 requirements, did not adequately identify or demonstrate that any named or unnamed individual was illegally detained or fit to be discharged under s84(3), lacked evidence of authorization to act for third parties, and improperly sought to advance generalized criticisms of psychiatric treatment rather than requisite factual allegations.
21 Jul 2017

HOLDEN v FAMILY COURT AT TAURANGA [2017] NZHC 1709 []

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1709
Court

High Court

Judge Whitehead lawfully declined the third s16 review because there was sufficient information before him (including an acting responsible clinician's communication indicating 'No change' and the s12 report) to conclude the patient's condition had not changed since the prior review, and s16(1C) gives a judge discretion to refuse subsequent reviews in those circumstances; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
3 Mar 2016

RS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 344

Citation

[2016] NZHC 344
Court

High Court

Given the appellant's long history of serious offending, repeated treatment non-compliance, substance abuse and risk of relapse into psychosis, and despite some mitigating opinion in the second report, the High Court concluded a s 24(2)(a) special patient order was necessary in the interests of the public to ensure robust management and rehabilitation; therefore Judge Crosbie did not err and the appeal is dismissed.
22 Oct 2014

A v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2014] NZHC 2619

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2619
Court

High Court

The applicant was lawfully detained because the statutory processes under the MHCAT were properly engaged and followed (directions under s29 and s13, final certificate and s14 application for a compulsory treatment order, and s15 authorising detention pending determination); habeas corpus was not the appropriate forum to re-litigate the clinical diagnosis, therefore the habeas corpus application was declined.
22 Mar 2011

P S V NORTH SHORE FAMILY COURT HC AK CIV-2010-404-004646

Citation

openlaw-0603a307_c416_41dc_8394_f6541d856a57.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 18 of the Mental Health Act imposes a mandatory duty on a Judge to personally examine the patient (subject only to what is 'appropriate and practicable' in the patient's presence); a compulsory treatment order made without such an examination is ultra vires and unlawful.
7 Feb 2008

COOKE V DIRECTOR OF AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES HC AK CIV 2007-404-5047

Citation

openlaw-a75e21b4_ecec_408a_86ef_f4358e340fc7.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time dismissed because the applicant was the successful party in the District Court and as a matter of law a successful party cannot challenge a decision in their favour; the court nevertheless declares the District Court found the applicant was not suffering a 'mental disorder' as defined by the Act.