BEST INTERESTS OR LEGAL RECTITUDE?: Australian MHT stakeholder and case-flow implications. TERRY CARNEY University of Sydney. What is my argument?.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
University of Sydney
Neither best interests (nor ‘TJ’) a sufficient, or sufficiently sound, basis for MHT practice; need nuanced re-balance of 3 domains: (i) law (fairness…)
(ii) medicine (optimal treatment) (iii) social (work, housing, ..
It is important to look at the structure and availability of tribunals with [wider] factors in mind, rather than merely the very narrow formal conception of the tribunal as concerned almost wholly with the need for a statutory order. It follows that the functions of the tribunal are likely to be understood as a general review and not merely a forensic contest as to the justification of the Order (Wood, 1999: 134).