Compulsory treatment assessment — availability of appropriate treatment — Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017 ss 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 23, 25, 29, 32 & 75 — The Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The subject of a compulsory treatment certificate appeared before the Judge with their lawyer and health professional team, in accordance with s 29 of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act ("the Act"). Counsel for the patient raised issue with the availability of treatment prescribed under s 7 of the Act and opposed the application for compulsory care on that basis. Section 7 of the Act provides the criteria that must be satisfied for compulsory treatment. A person can only be subject to such treatment if: (a) the person has a severe substance addiction; and (b) the person's capacity to make informed decisions about treatment for that addiction is severely impaired; and (c) compulsory treatment of the person is necessary; and (d) appropriate treatment for the person is available. The patient satisfied the criteria, however, counsel for the patient opposed the application on the basis of s 7(d). The only approved provider under the Act, Nova, had initially said they had a bed when the compulsory treatment certificate was signed but subsequently emailed the patient's responsible clinician declining treatment. This refusal was on the basis that the patient would be upsetting and potentially abusive towards the staff and other clients due to his history and his severe brain injury. The Judge did not accept the provider could pick and choose patients and further noted that s 30 does not allow for such selective service. Section 92 of the Act designated Nova as the sole approved and, incumbent on that role, they had to demonstrate they could manage the complex physical and psychological needs of the people under the Act. The patient also too issue with the only available treatment centre being in Christchurch but the Judge stated that, while being closer to home would be preferable, all options for informal treatment had been exhausted and were not a realistic option for success. The Judge reiterated that the patient met the criteria for care and that he has a right to treatment and therefore ordered his compulsory care. Judgment Date: 13 May 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *