New Zealand has recently experienced its first successful judicial review of a discharge decision made by a mental health review tribunal acting under the civil commitment legislation, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (NZ). This article discusses the substantive issues in the litigation and the reviewing posture adopted by the courts. The litigation presents numerous issues central to the work of mental health review tribunals including the meaning of “mental disorder” for civil commitment and discharge purposes; the choice between legal and psychiatric readings of mental health legislation; the conflict between psychiatric ethics and community expectations; the right of the Crown to natural justice in tribunal proceedings; and the degree of deference to be shown by a reviewing court to a specialised tribunal.
Judicial Review of the Meaning of “Mental Disorder”
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.