MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal
[2021] QSC 8
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal[2021] QSC 8
- Add to List
MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal[2021] QSC 8
MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal[2021] QSC 8
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2021] QSC 8 |
PARTIES: | MDF (applicant) v MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 744 of 2020 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Rockhampton |
DELIVERED ON: | 4 February 2021 |
DELIVERED AT: | Mackay |
HEARING DATE: | 29 January 2021 |
JUDGE: | Crow J |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – REASONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS – ADEQUACY OF REASONS – where the applicant was detained under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) – where the applicant sought reasons for his detainment – where the decision maker refused to provide reasons on the basis of public interest – where the applicant brought about judicial review proceedings – where the Attorney-General issued certificate under s 36 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – where the primary judge held that the due to the issue of certificate by the Attorney-General the reasons do not need to be provided to the applicant – where the applicant successfully appealed the trial judge’s decision – where the Court of Appeal ordered the reasons be provided, however, they be redacted so as to protect the identity of the relevant person the subject of the Attorney-General’s s 36 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) certificate – where the reasons were provided to the applicant in compliance with the orders of the Court of Appeal – where the applicant seeks further and better particulars – whether further and better particulars ought to be provided Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 36 A v Central Queensland Network Authorised Mental Health Service and Anor [2019] QSC 15, cited MDF v Central Queensland Network Authorised Mental Health Service & Anor [2020] QCA 108, followed |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on their own behalf S G Moon for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on their own behalf Crown Law for the respondent |
- [1]
- [2]Relevantly in order 2, the Court of Appeal ordered:[3]
“…[T]hat within 14 days of the pronouncement of this order, the second respondent provide to the applicant a written statement containing the reasons for the decision to issue an examination authority in relation to the applicant, except that the second respondent is not required to include in the statement information redacted as indicated in the draft statement of reasons in exhibit ‘AM-3’ to the affidavit of Ms Annette McMullen sworn 14 December 2018, amended as described in [66] of the reasons for judgment of Fraser JA.”
- [3]The respondent promptly delivered to the applicant a document identified as statement of reasons.[4] It, as the order of the Court of Appeal provided, contained a great deal of redaction. Malcontent with the reasons of the Court of Appeal, MDF attempted to engage the original jurisdiction of the High Court by endeavouring to lodge a Form 12 application in the High Court Registry. The High Court Registry would not accept the application, advising MDF that he should apply for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.[5]
- [4]
- [5]MDF has requested the High Court Registrar “refer the matter to a justice as soon as possible” and requested the Registrar to “provide me with the best contact details for the Commonwealth Attorney General [sic] so I can file another writ ordering that the Form 12’s [sic] be filed in accordance with Rule 25 of the High Court Rules.”
- [6]After having received the redacted reasons from the respondent, MDF, by letter of 7 June 2020 complained that:[7]
“Unfortunately, there is not a lot to go on and definitely not enough information for us to have a judicial review or statutory order of review of your client’s decision to issue the examination authority. Therefore, I would like to request further and better particulars from your client pursuant to s 38 of the Judicial Review Act QLD (1991).”
- [7]By that letter, MDF sought further and better particulars of the specific details of the information provided in the reasons and in particular. MDF seeks further and better particulars such as:
- In regards to the documents before the tribunal, MDF seeks information about the time, date, nature of detention and the nature of assessment.
- In regards to phrases which were said to be heard by the applicant for the examination authority, MDF seeks information about “[t]ime, date/s, and how the applicant detected the language eg. Time and distance, use of illegal devices, personal hearing etc.”
- [8]
- [9]The current application was filed by MDF on 22 July 2020. It is titled “Application relating to statement of reasons” and provides, inter alia:
“Application in relation to the decision of the respondent not to provide better and further particulars in relation to the statement of reasons 20 July 2018. The grounds for the application contained in the supporting affidavit…
The applicant is aggrieved by this decision because –
Jurisdictional error resulting in a breach of the statutory duty in s 34 of the Judicial Review Act (Qld) 1991…
The details of the relief sought –
The Applicant is seeking an order that the Respondent provide the Applicant with better and further particulars that are consistent with the definition of reasons in section 3 of the Judicial Review Act (QLD) 1991.”
- [10]In his submissions, MDF contended that the decision of the Court of Appeal was wrong in many respects and that the order provided to him did not contain sufficient information to constitute a proper set of reasons.
- [11]As to the first issue, plainly if MDF asserts there is error in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, then he must seek special leave to appeal to the High Court and he has not done so.
- [12]As to the second issue, either the respondent has complied with the orders of the Court of Appeal or it has not. MDF does not assert that the respondent has not complied with the orders of the Court of Appeal but rather asserts that the compliance by the respondent to the orders of the Court of Appeal and in particular order 2 does not provide him with sufficient information.
- [13]The difficulty for MDF is that order 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal requires the written statement of reasons to be delivered with the exception of “information redacted as indicated in the draft statement of reasons in exhibit ‘AM-3’ to the affidavit of Ms Annette McMullen sworn 14 December 2018, amended as described in [66] of the judgment of Fraser JA.”
- [14]On its face, Exhibit 1 to the affidavit of MDF,[11] the draft statement of reasons does comply with the relevant order of the Court of Appeal. However, no concluded view can be made of that as paragraph 66 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment was for reasons of confidentiality and privilege, redacted.
- [15]The position therefore is that there is not any application before the court brought by MDF alleging the orders of the Court of Appeal have not been complied with and nor is there sufficient information allowing assessment of that proposition. MDF argued that further and better particulars ought to be provided as the Court of Appeal’s decision in respect of crown privilege and public interest immunity was incorrect. That, however, is a matter for the High Court if special leave is applied for and granted.
- [16]In paragraph 11 of his written submissions,[12] MDF argued he ought to be afforded concise statements that reference the evidence and other material upon which the findings were based by the respondent and in particular a:
“concise statement detailing who was concerned about [MDF’s] mental health and the evidence or material upon which their concerns were based.”
(Emphasis added.)
- [17]The Attorney-General has protected the identity of concerned citizens as informants by the issue of a s 36 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) certificate. The rationale for issuing such a certificate is highlighted by the Court of Appeal.[13]
- [18]On the premise of the above reasons, I order that:
- The application filed 22 July 2020 is dismissed.
- If the parties cannot agree as to the appropriate cost order, then they ought to file and serve written submissions on costs as follows:
- The applicant within 7 days of the delivery of these reasons; and
- The respondent within 14 days of the delivery of these reasons.
- [19]I will decide the issue of costs on the papers.
Footnotes
[1]A v Central Queensland Network Authorised Mental Health Service and Anor [2019] QSC 15.
[2]See MDF v Central Queensland Network Authorised Mental Health Service & Anor [2020] QCA 108.
[3]MDF v Central Queensland Network Authorised Mental Health Service & Anor [2020] QCA 108.
[4]Exhibit 1 to the affidavit of MDF filed 22 July 2020.
[5]Exhibit 1 to the hearing of 29 January 2021.
[6]Affidavit of Nathaniel Graham Harris filed 29 January 2021.
[7]Exhibit 2 to the affidavit of MDF filed 22 July 2020.
[8]Exhibit 3 to the affidavit of MDF filed 22 July 2020.
[9]Exhibit 4 to the affidavit of MDF filed 22 July 2020.
[10]Exhibit 5 to the affidavit of MDF filed 22 July 2020.
[11]Exhibit 1 to the affidavit of MDF filed 22 July 2020.
[12]Filed 29 September 2020.
[13]MDF v Central Queensland Network Authorised Mental Health Service & Anor [2020] QCA 108 at [51].