BHATTACHARYA v THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, NEPEAN HOSPITAL [1994] NSWCA 24

BHATTACHARYA vy THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, NEPEAN HOSPITAL

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY, MEAGHER and SHELLER JJA 8 August 1994, 8 August 1994 [1994] NSWCA 24

Appeal from Protective Division — Involuntary patient detained under Mental Health Act 1990 — Application under s285 of the Act.

Liberty of individual — Need to scrutinise reasons for detention. Statutory Procedure — Need to follow terms of section.

Held: (1) Plaintiff was suffering from a mental illness. (2) He was a mentally ill person. (3) Care of a less restrictive kind was not appropriate or reasonably available. ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Mahoney JA This is a matter in which the court feels a decision should be given as soon as may be. The court, having heard the detailed arguments of counsel and read their written submissions, is in a position to give a decision and I shall express my own views in relation to the matter.

This is an application made under s285 of the Mental Health Act 1990. It was brought by summons. The summons that appears operative at the moment is one bearing a file stamp 25 March 1994 of the Protective Division. It is a summons seeking an order, inter alia, that the defendant, Mr Pranay Bhattacharya, be brought before the court for examination pursuant to s285(2) of the Mental Health Act.

The background against which the summons was filed is this. The plaintiff has apparently had, in recent years, more than his share of troubles. He was a member of the Public Service and in or about 1981 his services were terminated in circumstances which he did not accept. At least, there has been litigation in relation to that matter, litigation which, as appears from the court papers, reached this Court. Subsequently in November 1992 the plaintiffs wife died. That must no doubt have caused him significant distress. But, however that be, it has been found that he has been exhibiting signs and symptoms which some of the medical practitioners saw as evidencing a mental illness. It is not necessary for me to detail in this judgment all of the facts; they are set out in the judgment of Brownie J, the trial judge.