The Tribunal granted the applicant psychiatrist's application and made an interim treatment order for the maximum 10-day period, authorising the patient's detention and involuntary treatment at approved facilities. The decision methodically applies each of the mandatory criteria in s 38 and s 40 of the Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas), confirming that 'likely' in s 40(b) means 'something that might well happen' rather than 'more probable than not' (following B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10), and that treatment directed at managing ill effects or monitoring mental state satisfies the s 40(c) appropriateness criterion (following S v Mental Health Tribunal [2016] TASSC 34). The case illustrates the procedural reality that interim treatment orders are almost invariably determined on the papers without the patient's direct participation, a tension with natural justice objectives acknowledged but not resolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members.