IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST S CI 2015 02936 ROBERT PETER DE BRUYN Plaintiff (by his Litigation Guardian, Gary Michael de Bruyn) v VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH Defendant --- JUDGE: RIORDAN J WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE DATE OF HEARING: 1,2,3 DECEMBER 2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22 MARCH 2016 CASE MAY BE CITED AS: DE BRUYN v VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2016] VSC 111 --- MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2014 (VIC) – Whether the imposition of a smoke free policy was within the statutory power of a hospital. TOBACCO ACT 1987 (VIC) – Whether there is an implied statutory right to smoke. CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006 (VIC) – Whether a smoking ban engaged an involuntary patient’s human rights to be treated with dignity under s 22(1), appropriately for a person who has not been convicted under s 22(3), and/or not to be subjected to compulsory medical treatment under s 10(c) – Whether a person found not guilty by reason of insanity is ‘detained without charge’ within the meaning of s 22(3) – Whether a hospital, in adopting a smoke free policy, had given proper consideration to relevant human rights in accordance with s 38(1). --- APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors For the Plaintiff Mr R Hay QC Burke & Associates Mr M Albert For the Defendant Mr C Horan SC Corporate Counsel, Victorian Ms J Davidson Institute of Forensic Mental Health For the Attorney General Ms M Richards SC Victorian Government Solicitor Ms J Watson TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1 Background .........................................................................................................................................4 Smoking restrictions at the Hospital ..........................................................................................6 Is the Smoke Free Policy beyond the power of the defendant in that it falls outside the powers given to it by the Mental Health Act 2014? .............................................................30 Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................30 Defendant’s submissions ...........................................................................................................31 The authorities.............................................................................................................................33 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................35 Is the Smoke Free Policy contrary to the Tobacco Act 1987?....................................................36 Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................36 Defendant’s submissions ...........................................................................................................38 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................40 Did the defendant contravene the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006?..............................................................................................................................................41 The scheme of the Charter .........................................................................................................42 The dignity right..........................................................................................................................44 Has the dignity right been engaged?..............................................................................44 Plaintiff’s submissions .........................................................................................44 Defendant’s submissions.....................................................................................45 The Attorney-General’s submissions ................................................................46 The authorities ......................................................................................................47 Conclusion.............................................................................................................53 Did the defendant fail to give proper consideration to the dignity right?................57 Plaintiff’s submissions .........................................................................................57 Defendant’s submissions.....................................................................................58 The Attorney-General’s submissions ................................................................59 The Authorities.....................................................................................................64 Conclusion.............................................................................................................66 The right against inhuman treatment ......................................................................................71 Plaintiff’s submissions ......................................................................................................72 Submissions of the defendant and Attorney-General..................................................73 Authorities..........................................................................................................................74 Can a general policy fall within the definition of a medical procedure?.....75 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................77 Other treatments................................................................................................................78 The effect of s 10(c) informing s 22 of the Charter..................................................................79 Treatment of a person detained without charge ....................................................................80 Consideration.....................................................................................................................81 Orders .................................................................................................................................................83 i HIS HONOUR: Introduction 1 The plaintiff, Mr Robert de Bruyn, is an involuntary patient at Thomas Embling Hospital (‘the Hospital’), a clinical services facility of the defendant, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, also known as Forensicare. The plaintiff, by his litigation guardian, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant to prevent the implementation of a smoke free policy at the Hospital. 2 The smoke free policy, as adopted by the defendant, has applied to all of the defendant’s sites from 1 July 2015 (‘the Smoke Free Policy’). In summary, it provides as follows: (a) Smoking is not permitted anywhere on the defendant’s premises or grounds including outdoor areas. (b) Cigarettes, tobacco, electronic cigarettes and smoking paraphernalia are considered contraband as defined in the Contraband Policy approved on 20 October 2014 and will be liable to be ‘reported and stored’. People in possession of such items will be prevented from entering the grounds of the defendant’s premises. 3 By an originating motion between parties filed on 9 June 2015 and amended on 6 August 2015 pursuant to the order of Ierodiaconou AsJ made on 3 August 2015, the plaintiff seeks orders pursuant to O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 as follows: 1. An order prohibiting the implementation of the Smoke Free Policy; 2. A declaration that the Smoke Free Policy is beyond the power of the Defendant; 3. A finding that the Defendant, as a public authority for the purposes of section 4(1)(b) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 (Vic), will breach the human rights of the Plaintiff to not be deprived of his property other than in accordance with law under s 20 and/or to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under s 22(1), and acted unlawfully under s 38(1) of the DE BRUYN v VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF 1 JUDGMENT FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH Charter in seeking to impose the Smoke Free Policy at the Thomas Embling Hospital; 4. An order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs of this proceeding; 5. Such further or other order as the Court deems fit. 4 The grounds relied upon by the plaintiff are as follows: (a) The Smoke Free Policy is: (i) beyond the power of the defendant because it falls outside the powers given to it by the Mental Health Act 2014; and/or (ii) unlawful because it is inconsistent with the Tobacco Act 1987 (‘the Tobacco Act’). (b) The defendant breached its obligations under s 38 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (‘the Charter’) not to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right or, in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right when it decided to approve and/or adopt the Smoke Free Policy in that it will, if implemented, breach the human rights of the plaintiff to: (i) not be deprived of his property other than in accordance with law under s 20; and/or (ii) be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person