메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 105-117

Civil commitment: Due process, procedural fairness and the quality of decision‐making

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; COURT; DECISION MAKING; DETENTION; HUMAN; INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT; LAW; MENTAL PATIENT; PATIENT RIGHT; PSYCHIATRIST; REVIEW;

EID: 0035714452     PISSN: 13218719     EISSN: 19341687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13218710109525009     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (4)

References (31)
  • 2
    • 85007860064 scopus 로고
    • Graham v State of New South Wales, unreported
    • Crispen J; Graham v State of New South Wales, unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 13 October 1989
    • (1989) NSW Court of Appeal , pp. 13
    • Crispen, J.1
  • 3
    • 85007801939 scopus 로고
    • Smith v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134 at 139; David by Her Tutor the Protective Commissioner v David (1993) 30 NSWLR 417
    • (1980) 147 CLR 134 at 139;
  • 4
    • 85007780292 scopus 로고
    • NSWLR 315, per Kirby P
    • Harry v Mental Health Review Tribunal ‖ Anor (1994) 33 NSWLR 315 at 322–323 per Kirby P
    • (1994) , vol.33
  • 5
    • 85007780306 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 1005 per
    • MM v Mental Health Review Board [1999] WASC 1005 per
    • (1999) WASC
  • 7
    • 85007827782 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [T]here must be a reconciliation of personal freedom and the need for treatment and that, as a matter of general principle, a person should not be forced to accept medidne or treatment, even though
    • White J: “[T]here must be a reconciliation of personal freedom and the need for treatment and that, as a matter of general principle, a person should not be forced to accept medidne or treatment, even though it be for her own good. It is a serious step to deprive a person of her liberty, especially if it is intended that detention be used to facilitate involuntary psychiatric treatment such as enforced medication.” See also Re B v Mental Health Review Board and Dr W (1988) 2 VAR 598.
    • See Also
    • White, J.1
  • 8
    • 85007827641 scopus 로고
    • June, commenting at
    • Compare though Eames J in Re Murray, unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 23 June 1995, commenting at p 5
    • (1995) Re Murray , vol.23 , pp. 5
  • 9
    • 85007856061 scopus 로고
    • NSWLR 315 at 335
    • “A too-ready assumption that the exercise under s8 is analogous to an arrest and detention by police officers may well prove disadvantageous to the broader interests of the client”, applying Mahoney JA in Harry v Mental Health Review Tribunal (1994) 33 NSWLR 315 at 335.
    • (1994) Applying Mahoney , vol.33
  • 10
    • 85007800205 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • WASC 203
    • WASC 203.
    • (2000)
  • 11
    • 0034536253 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Mental Health – Problems and Issues with Access to Information in Western Australia
    • See N Barber, “Mental Health – Problems and Issues with Access to Information in Western Australia” (2000) 7(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 198.
    • (2000) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , vol.7 , Issue.2 , pp. 198
    • Barber, S.N.1
  • 12
    • 85007785540 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • MM v Mental Health Review Board [1999] WASC 1005.
    • (1999) WASC , pp. 1005
  • 13
    • 85007856054 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • WASC 392
    • MM v Mental Health Review Board [1998] WASC 392.
    • (1998)
  • 14
    • 85007881488 scopus 로고
    • ALR 525
    • Scott J specifically referred to and adopted the comments of Deane J in Donaldson v Broomby (1982) 40 ALR 525
    • (1982) Donaldson V Broomby , vol.40
  • 15
    • 85007820561 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • VSC 404
    • VSC 404.
    • (2000)
  • 16
    • 85007889907 scopus 로고
    • An order requiring treatment for mental illness of a person who is at large in the community but does not apply to a person who is in prison or a patient in an approved mental health service
    • (Vic) as, For extensive annotations of the Act, see I Freckelton (ed), Law Book Co, Sydney
    • In Victoria a community treatment order is defined under s3 of the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) as “an order requiring treatment for mental illness of a person who is at large in the community but does not apply to a person who is in prison or a patient in an approved mental health service.” For extensive annotations of the Act, see I Freckelton (ed), Victorian Criminal Law, Investigation and Procedure, vol 2, Law Book Co, Sydney, 2000.
    • (1986) Victorian Criminal Law, Investigation and Procedure , vol.2 , pp. 2000
  • 17
    • 85007856069 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 3
    • February
    • Re Review of CW, unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 3 February 1997
    • (1997) Re Review of CW, Unreported
  • 18
    • 85007889891 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Victorian Mental Health Review Board,1
    • October
    • Re Review of McD, unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board,1 October 1997
    • (1997) Re Review of Mcd
  • 19
    • 85007787590 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 31
    • March, deciding the Board did not have jurisdiction to review the status of persons on expired CTOs
    • Re Review and Appeal of PM, unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 31 March 2000 (deciding the Board did not have jurisdiction to review the status of persons on expired CTOs)
    • (2000) Re Review and Appeal of PM
  • 20
    • 85007787591 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Re Appeal and Review of JM
    • unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 4 September 1995; Re Review of JA, unreported, August
    • Re Appeal and Review of JM, unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 4 September 1995; Re Review of JA, unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 7 August 1998
    • (1998) Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 7
  • 21
    • 85007871529 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Re Appeal of MC
    • August, deciding the Board did have jurisdiction to review the status of persons on expired CTOs
    • Re Appeal of MC, unreported, Victorian Mental Health Review Board, 20 August 1999 (deciding the Board did have jurisdiction to review the status of persons on expired CTOs).
    • (1999) Victorian Mental Health Review Board
  • 22
    • 85007889919 scopus 로고
    • In particular, In the Matter ofXY, unreported
    • 6 March 1992
    • In particular, In the Matter ofXY, unreported, Full Court of Victorian Supreme Court, 6 March 1992; (1992) 2 MHRBD (Vic) 501
    • (1992) MHRBD (Vic) , vol.2 , pp. 501
  • 23
    • 85007787576 scopus 로고
    • Re Murray, unreported
    • Re Murray, unreported, Supreme Court ofVictoria, 23 June 1995.
    • (1995) Supreme Court Ofvictoria , pp. 23
  • 24
    • 85007794832 scopus 로고
    • In the Matter of XY
    • 6 March 1992;, MHRBD (Vic) 501
    • Referencing In the Matter of XY, unreported, Full Court of Victorian Supreme Court, 6 March 1992; (1992) 2 MHRBD (Vic) 501
    • (1992) Unreported, Full Court of Victorian Supreme Court , vol.2
  • 25
    • 85007857168 scopus 로고
    • MHRBD (Vic) 250 at 254
    • Re the Review ofAWY (1995) 2 MHRBD (Vic) 250 at 254
    • (1995) Re the Review Ofawy , vol.2
  • 26
    • 85007827578 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Vic) 425 at 432;, Re the Appeal ofEOB
    • Re the Review of RD (1997) 2 MHRBD (Vic) 425 at 432; Re the Appeal ofEOB (1995) 2 MHRBD (Vic) 245.
    • (1997) Re the Review of RD , vol.2
  • 27
    • 85007827576 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • In the Review of NI
    • (Vic) (forthcoming)
    • In the Review of NI [2000] 3 MHRBD (Vic) (forthcoming).
    • (2000) MHRBD , vol.3
  • 30
    • 85007809679 scopus 로고
    • (1994) 33 NSWLR315.
    • (1994) NSWLR315 , vol.33


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.