SJ Ryan
BAK28500/011
Tauranga Office
26th March 1993
COONEY
LEESAND
MORGAN
Mr M. Baker
42 Spencer Avenue,
MAKETU 3070
Dear Malcolm
RE: MENTAL HEALTH INQUIRY - TOKONUI HOSPITAL
1. Please find enclosed the report just received from the District Mental Health inspector, Mr Bates.
2. As it is apparent from the enclosed report, Mr Bates finds (inter alia) that on the face of it there appears to have been some technical breaches of your detention by the Police, prior to committal to Tokonui Hospital. We refer in particular to paragraph 3.10 and 3.11. Notwithstanding the suggestion of technical irregularities in your detention, Mr Bates goes on to express his view that the committal action was appropriate in the circumstances of your case. Refer paragraph 3.15. Although expressing the view that there were matters sufficient to maintain a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority, Mr Bates goes on to say that he has some sympathy for the actions of the individual Police Officers, notwithstanding any technical non-compliance with proper procedures. We refer, for instance, to paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3.
3. Mr Bates finds that in other respects, the actions of the various medical practitioners were proper.
4. Mr Bates' finding at paragraph 4.3 that the Police may technically have been acting in breach of their authority to detain you, may give rise to you having a legitimate cause of action against the individual Police Officers for false imprisonment. Subject to any findings of the Police Complaints Authority on your allegations specified in paragraph 5.5 of the report, we would tend towards the view that in the circumstances of your case you would be entitled to only nominal damages, if any, and we do not consider that your case would warrant the issuing of civil proceedings against the Police for any breach of the Mental Health Act.
6. We refer to your letter of 13th March 1993 in which you advised you received an appointment card for reassessment by Dr. Short at Tauranga Public Hospital. You enquired whether you were legally obliged to attend the assessment. We comment as follows:
7. Dr Short is presently on leave until 30th of March 1993. His secretary advises that the notice of appointment for re-assessment was issued by the hospital according to Section 76 of the new Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
8. If the hospital is properly empowered to conduct a fresh clinical review of your treatment pursuant to Section 76 of the Act then on the face of it you do have a legal obligation to attend the appointment. The hospital has the power to compel your attendance, with the assistance of the Police if necessary.
9. It appears to us that where you have formerly been committed as a patient in Tokonui Hospital, that you will now be deemed to be subject to what is known as a "Community Treatment Order" pursuant to S144 of the Mental Health Act 1992. The Community Treatment Order is a form of compulsory treatment order that can be made under the new Mental Health Act. Patients formerly committed under the old Mental health Act and who are now on leave are deemed to be subject to a Community Treatment Order. A Community Treatment Order is a form of compulsory treatment order issued under the new Mental Health Act.
10. Section 76 of the Mental Health Act 1992 requires the Tauranga Public Hospital to conduct a formal review of your condition, no later than three months after the date of the Compulsory Treatment Order. We are unsure exactly as to the date in which any Order was made, and have written to the hospital seeking to clarify this point. The purpose of a clinical review under Section 76 is to review your mental health status. After having examined you the Mental Health Clinician is required to state his or her opinion as to whether you are fit to be released from the compulsory Treatment Order. If the Clinician is of the opinion that you are not fit to be released from the Compulsory Treatment Order status then there is an appeal procedure to a Review Tribunal and subsequently to the District Court.
11. Subject to confirmation that the clinical review under Section 76 of the Mental Health Act is within the required statutory time, it would appear to us to be proper for you to appear for the appointment with Dr Short. At that point in time Dr Short can then determine whether you are fit to be released from the Compulsory Treatment Order. It may be that Dr Short will consider that you are fit to be released from the compulsory status in which case you need not be subject to any compulsory medication. If however Dr Short considers that you are not fit to be released from compulsory status then at that point in time you may wish to exercise the appeal procedure to the Review Tribunal and if necessary, to the District Court. There will need to be sufficient medical grounds (preferably from an independent psychiatrist) to support any appeal in this manner.
In accordance with our recent telephone conversation, we look forward to meeting with you at our offices on Thursday 1 April 1993 at 2 pm to discuss matters.
Yours faithfully
COONEY LEES & MORGAN
STUART RYAN
Solicitor
21/74-76/GMW/1P
How?
How can the police arrest somebody for trespass when they have not been warned for trespass?
How can they detain them without giving them access to a lawyer?
How can they force them to take medication under threat of being forced to take it by injection, when the doctor says they are not mentally ill, and completely rational?
Dr Van Der Sluis 11th August 1992
How can this happen in a civilized country like New Zealand?
Compulsory status lifted by Dr Short 27/04/93
"In my opinion (signed) (i) The patient is fit to be released from compulsory status and directions have been
JHWS tick given for that release "
Another medical report was prepared by Mark Lawrence in about 2007. This is because I asked my G.P. Wendy Huang, how I could be rid of the Property Management Order which was preventing me from bringing Sladja and her family to New Zealand.
He found out that my treatment has made me extremely claustrophobic, to the point that I cannot change the oil of my car. Yes you laugh, but it isn't funny when you start to be sick.
There is a copy of the Property Management Order here:
Protection of Personal Property Order
That was made on 28th of August 2007, and was to remain in force for three years. On what pretext was it made? Was I now going to be mentally ill even though I had been assessed and found clear, (but warned to "stay off the top shelf", even though I denied having a drinking problem?
An attempt was made to detain me under the Mental Health Act in December 2007 by Tauranga Hospital, after my neighbour issued me with a trespass notice, and I may have inadvertently violated it when I went to ask them if they had seen somebody hanging around my property who had damaged my motorbike.
I applied for a judicial review and the hearing was held at Tauranga Hospital, although by that time I was on leave, having spent Christmas 2007 as an unwilling guest in the psychiatric ward. The Judge declined their application so I was allowed to go home, and continue looking after my two cats.
There is a copy of his judgment here:
Court Judgment 17th January 2007
The property management order expired on 28th August 2010, but Guardian Trust, under my now property manager and manager of the Tauranga office for the last 21 years Craig Roebuck. He contracted a doctor to do an assessment, which I have not been allowed to see, and which my G.P. has not been allowed to see. On that basis on 9th February 2011 an order was appointing Craig Roebuck my property manager for a further three years, and making New Zealand Guardian Trust, the applicant, responsible for all my financial arrangement and legal contracts.
How can this be fair and just? On what basis am I unable to manage my own finances? What law have I broken?