G v Sixty-six Others (19/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 37 (5 June 2008)

G v Sixty-six Others (19/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 37 (5 June 2008)

The Court held that the procedures established by the Mental Health Care Act for the involuntary detention of mental health care users, including the role of Review Boards and the High Court, are constitutionally compliant and consistent with human rights obligations. The Review Boards function as independent bodies, replacing the curator-ad-litem under the repealed Act, and make reasonable efforts to ensure users are apprised of their rights to representation. The Court found that proceedings under section 34(7) should generally be held in chambers to protect the privacy and dignity of users, except in controversial cases where open court may be appropriate. The evidence presented,...

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 37
Parties
Applicant: G and Sixty-six Others; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Department of Health; Respondent: Legal Aid Board
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2008
Case Number
19/2007
Procedural Posture
Special Hearing / Full Bench Hearing Following Procedural Difficulties Raised by Assigned Judge
Outcome
The Court confirmed the procedures under the Mental Health Care Act and found no constitutional defects. The individual cases submitted under section 34(7) were confirmed.
Judges
Levinsohn, Van der Reyden
Legal Topics
Mental Health Care Act, Review Board Procedure, Right to Representation, Involuntary Detention, Constitutional Compliance
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Family and Children Mental Health Care Act Review Board Procedure Right to Representation Involuntary Detention Constitutional Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G and Sixty-six Others

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Department of Health

Respondent

Legal Aid Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Hearing / Full Bench Hearing Following Procedural Difficulties Raised by Assigned Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procedures under the Mental Health Care Act for involuntary detention and review by the High Court comply with constitutional and human rights standards.
  2. 2 Whether mental health care users are afforded adequate representation before Review Boards and the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether proceedings under section 34(7) and section 36 of the Act should be held in open court or in chambers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the procedures established by the Mental Health Care Act for the involuntary detention of mental health care users, including the role of Review Boards and the High Court, are constitutionally compliant and consistent with human rights obligations. The Review Boards function as independent bodies, replacing the curator-ad-litem under the repealed Act, and make reasonable efforts to ensure users are apprised of their rights to representation. The Court found that proceedings under section 34(7) should generally be held in chambers to protect the privacy and dignity of users, except in controversial cases where open court may be appropriate. The evidence presented,...

Court Disposition

The Court confirmed the procedures under the Mental Health Care Act and found no constitutional defects. The individual cases submitted under section 34(7) were confirmed.

Orders

  • Each case listed in the schedule is confirmed as per the appropriate form appended to the file.
  • Proceedings under section 34(7) are to be held in chambers unless controversy requires open court.