TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2013//
TI  - The duty of care owed to a mentally ill person in the community who may require involuntary apprehension
JO  - Psychiatry, psychology and law
A1  - Scott, Russ
SP  - 660
EP  - 685
VL  - 20
IS  - 5
N2  - In Crowley v Commonwealth of Australia, ACT and Pitkethy [2011] ACTSC 89, a mental health service was found negligent for failing to pursue a recommendation to re-assess and arrange hospital admission of an acutely mentally ill man who was later injured after he was shot by police. The trial judge held that the mental health service was negligent for failing to exercise the statutory power of apprehension as provided for in the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT). The decision was overturned on appeal. In ACT v Crowley, Commonwealth of Australia and Pitkethy [2012] ACTCA 52, the ACT Court of Appeal held that the duty of care owed to the plaintiff was limited only to following up on the matters discussed with the person's family during a home visit on the previous evening. The Court of Appeal held that the scope of the duty of care owed by the mental health service did not include a duty to exercise the apprehension power. The High Court declined to grant special leave to appeal. All mental health legislation in Australia and New Zealand has provisions enabling mentally ill persons to be assessed and treated, even if the person is insightless and uncooperative. The appellate decision from the ACT is very relevant to the day-to-day operation of acute community mental health services.<p />
LA  - en
SN  - 1321-8719
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.829386
ID  - ref1
ER  -