After an unprecedented six weeks in consideration, the Mental Health Review Tribunal made a 58 page decision on March 20, 2014 on the future of Saeed Dezfouli, the man who was subject of the ABC Background Briefing program “The Man Without a Name”.
‘The Tribunal rubber-stamped the hospital’s authority to act as it wants, despite the Supreme Court saying it had power over the hospital. The forced injections will continue in the highest security cells. It said if Saeed doesn’t "make a genuine effort to engage with the treating team’s current treatment plan which includes injected medication…he may simply continue to remain in his current circumstances indefinitely”. We are considering another appeal’ said Justice Action Coordinator Brett Collins.
Saeed said today: “I’m not surprised by the result. For twelve years they have been trying to reduce me and those around me to dazed, medicated semi-humans. That is their culture. They must respect our human right to learn and recover”. He has begun a weekly blog called “VOICE INSIDE MADNESS" reporting on what is happening around him.
Saeed has been held for over twelve years in the highest security hospital, never having intended any harm. If he was convicted as a criminal he would have served four years. The Tribunal referred to arguments that he had paid the penalty as “a complete misconception and fallacious”, “irrelevant and unhelpful …. and likely to unfairly raise false hopes and expectations”. It ignored the NSW Law Reform Commission Report that this was unfair, and its recommendation [dead link] on “extending the requirement for the court to set a limiting term for all forensic patients”. (Report 138 [dead link] Exec Summary 1.27 page X1X Recommendation 7.2) This issue featured in its media release” said Mr Collins.
The Tribunal permitted Saeed Dezfouli to publish his own name, and for comments to be published by his primary carer on the Justice Action website, media releases, emails and talks. But in a separate 12 page judgment the Tribunal said that the judgments themselves couldn’t be published, nor could the names of the psychiatrists or Tribunal members. No statements could be made on social media. It made threats against full public exposure like: “Mr Collins would need to be very cautious” and “he would be well advised to seek legal advice on in any case where there is the least doubt” make it clear that Saeed’s health interests aren’t the ones being protected from view’ said Mr Collins.
'On forced medication, the Tribunal dismissed in one sentence the international research showing that cognitive behaviour therapy and social support are more effective, refusing to engage on the issue. The treating team had said there is "no evidence that suggests that consumer support in the absence of antipsychotic medication is effective for managing a chronic psychotic illness” and “there is in theory a risk of harm if he is in the community if he acted upon his delusions. Medication will lessen preoccupation with delusions, even if they are ongoing and would make him more manageable in the community”. That is the medicalisation of social problems’ said Mr Collins.
Douglas Holmes, TheMHS Emeritus Standing and spokesperson for consumers said: “I am disappointed with the Tribunal's response as it seems to contradict their support for the newly released Mental Health Consumer Information Sheet and doesn’t understand the status of Justice Action”