Mental health tribunals: 'TJ' implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ArticleAbstract
People with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and ...
See morePeople with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and treatment. Therapeutic jurisprudence principles, and other precepts, suggest that participants should be treated with dignity and fairness, be fully engaged, and be helped to recover. Overseas research has found that these aspirations are often not realised. This article reports findings from an ongoing Australian Research Council funded collaborative study (2005-2008) of the practice of tribunals in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In particular, it highlights the challenge of giving concrete meaning to concepts such as "fairness" or "the most therapeutic outcome" when assessing the variety of practices found in different jurisdictions. The article argues that information and data about the socio-legal context in which mental health tribunals operate are vital to answering these questions.
See less
See morePeople with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and treatment. Therapeutic jurisprudence principles, and other precepts, suggest that participants should be treated with dignity and fairness, be fully engaged, and be helped to recover. Overseas research has found that these aspirations are often not realised. This article reports findings from an ongoing Australian Research Council funded collaborative study (2005-2008) of the practice of tribunals in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In particular, it highlights the challenge of giving concrete meaning to concepts such as "fairness" or "the most therapeutic outcome" when assessing the variety of practices found in different jurisdictions. The article argues that information and data about the socio-legal context in which mental health tribunals operate are vital to answering these questions.
See less
Date
2007Source title
Journal of Judicial AdministrationVolume
17Issue
1Publisher
Thomson ReutersLicence
Copyright All Rights ReservedRights statement
This article was published by Thomson Reuters and should be cited as: others, and, & Carney, T. (2007). Mental health tribunals: “TJ” implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment. Journal of Judicial Administration, 17(1), 46–59. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.auFaculty/School
The University of Sydney Law SchoolShare