Health, Mental Health and Guardianship

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian for REN where his daughter (RAD) and nephew (SR) nominated themselves as prospective guardians. In making an order that RAD and SR be appointed as guardians, Member McDonald acknowledged the limitations on REN’s human rights, concluding they were both reasonable and necessary.

This matter concerned the sentencing of the defendant, an Afghanistan war-veteran who developed PTSD and other mental health issues after serving three tours of duty. The Court was concerned, after reading a psychologist’s sentencing report, about the failure of Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) to facilitate the defendant’s treatment and rehabilitation and uphold the defendant’s rights to access medical treatment.

This case concerned the application for an order of a reportable death under the Coroners Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the District Court derives from section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), which provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the State Coroner’s decision may apply for an order about whether it is a reportable death. The court did not engage in any substantive discussion regarding the Human Rights Act 2019; however, it was noted that the decision was found to be compatible with and to satisfy any operative provision of the Human Rights Act 2019.

This case concerned an application seeking appointment of the Public Guardian for approval of restrictive practice, containment and seclusion in a memory support unit for people who suffer dementia: at [3]. The Tribunal were satisfied that the decision to appoint the Public Guardian pursuant to s 12 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) for the personal matter of giving consent was compatible with the human rights.

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland as guardian and administrator respectively, for a 90-year-old adult male (‘NHI’). NHI was diagnosed with dementia of mixed aetiology (amidst other health concerns), when admitted to hospital after being found on the floor in his remote residence, where he lives alone. The Tribunal briefly considered relevant human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), discussing that statutory provisions must be interpreted to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, and in a way compatible with human rights.

This matter concerned multiple issues arising out of a guardianship application for MTC. MTC’s children SNB, SNE and DTA sought to replace the Public Trustee as MTC’s guardian and administrator, subject to a loan dispute with MTC’s other child, SND, being resolved. The Tribunal recognised that the appointment of an ongoing administrator would impact MTC’s property rights under section 24 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), noting that although the appointment of administrator does not deprive an adult of their ownership of property, it does remove their control over the property.

This matter concerned three applications brought by a hospital social worker regarding LDR for the appointment of a guardian; for the appointment of an administrator; for an interim order for appointment of a guardian and an administrator until the substantive applications have been decided.

This matter concerned an application filed by a hospital social worker for an interim appointment of a guardian and an administrator in respect of an elderly woman. The applicant did not refer to human rights.

HAJ, the appointed attorney for HAW in relation to financial, personal and health matters, filed an application seeking authorisation of a conflict transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied that authorising these transactions was compatible with HAW’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), specifically HAW’s property rights.

This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian as guardian for HE. The Tribunal accepted that it was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and that appointing a guardian on an interim basis would interfere with a person’s human rights. In refusing the application, the Tribunal concluded that it was consistent with HE’s human rights to hold a hearing of the matter and provide HE the opportunity to be heard.