[2] This legislation also allows for the detention and treatment of individuals who have committed crimes but who have either been deemed unfit to plead or have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
[5] Competence plays an important role in the decision making of clinical staff when seeking to treat patients compulsorily.
Clinical staff concluded that his obsession was of delusional intensity and that his risk to himself and others was significant enough to detain him under s24 of the Mental Health Act 1969.
The High Court of New Zealand considered whether the man's detention was, under the Bill of Rights Act 1990, "arbitrary".
It was held that refusing to release M was not arbitrary, based on evidence that he was mentally disordered, and that he posed a risk to both the public and himself.
[9] According to Sylvia Bell, "The real value of the code in a psychiatric context is that it affirms the duty of providers to ensure that clinical processes are exercised in a professional manner, and proper deference is paid by clinicians and mental health workers to the human rights of patients".
[10] According to John Dawson, "The new Act is a compromise between competing demands - for rapid access to treatment in genuine emergencies, for greater respect for patients' dignity, for adherence to fairer procedures in mental health proceedings, and for the continued protection of families and the public from genuinely 'dangerous' people.
Section 8B states that this application must be accompanied by a certificate from a medical professional who believes the person has a mental disorder.
Following this period the responsible clinician may apply to the Family Court for a Compulsory Treatment Order under s28 of the Act.
[17] Finding of mental disorder requires the establishment of four elements: Difficulty arises around compulsory treatment as whilst the definition of mental disorder is a legal one, not a medical one, decisions around detaining a patient or enforcing compulsory treatment are made by clinical staff.
[35] However some, such as the right to receive visitors and make phone calls, were considered fundamental and it was seen as unnecessary to include them in statute.
They are individuals who have been found unfit to plead, acquitted on account of insanity or have been committed to a hospital or facility on conviction.