Important cases — Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (now repealed)
[9-1280] Jones v Booth [2019] NSWSC 1066
Civil procedure — mental health — declaratory relief sought concerning qualifications of a psychologist to furnish a report in support of a s 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 application — report rejected by magistrate as it was not a psychiatric report — report later accepted by different magistrate — application under s 32 later successful — type of report which may be appropriate will depend on particular case — court should consider the qualifications and expertise of author, together with report contents, to determine whether report should be admitted and what weight is given to it — conditions which fall within the definition of “cognitive impairment” are frequently reported on by psychologists — live controversy does not exist for grant of declaratory relief — declaration refused.
R v Richard (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 272
Fitness to be tried — accused charged with serious sexual offence — s 10 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 — fitness tests directed to minimum requirements for a fair trial — experts agree accused is not fit to stand trial due to intellectual disability — matter referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for determination pursuant to s 16 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900.
DPP (NSW) v Saunders [2017] NSWSC 760
Appeal — magistrate dismissed charges s 32(3)(b) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 — order that person attend psychiatrist/psychologist — magistrate must name a particular place or person s 32(3)(b) — enforcement provisions and object and purpose of the Act to be considered — appeal allowed.
Police v DMO [2015] NSWChC 4
Young person pleaded guilty to intimidating police office in execution of his duty — matter set down for defended hearing — whether admission of young person to mental health facility under s 33(1)(b) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (MHFP Act) operates to finalise charges — no decisions of intermediate or higher courts dealing with the interpretation of s 33 — an order under s 33(1)(b) where the person is detained in the mental health facility does not operate to finalise charges — s 33 provides court with a mechanism to have persons who appear to be suffering from mental illness to be assessed by an authorised medical officer at a mental health facility — the contention that once the person is admitted the charges cannot be relisted could not have been the legislature’s intention — no requirement in MHFP Act to establish link between offences charged and the mental illness.