Paul Harvey v AT  NZFC 3928
Published 20 October 2016
Statutory interpretation — Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act
2003, ss 7 and 86.
Although both parties accepted that a s 86 order was appropriate in relation to the care
recipient, submissions were considered as to the care co-ordinator’s obligation regarding
“intellectual disability” under the Act.
The question was whether the care co-ordinator had an obligation to satisfy the Court, both at the time of the original application for a compulsory care order and for all subsequent reviews, that the care recipient has an “intellectual disability” as defined in section 7 of the Act.
Compliance with the Act requires that the Court must be satified the intellectual disability still exists, despite any percieved practical difficulties in formally assessing and individual. The Act requirements include providing an expert report confirming the care recipient's ongoing "intellectual disability" and continued status under the Act to the Court.
The Judge dismissed the applicant’s position which was largely based on practical aspects, and determined that in light of the provisions and purposes of the Act, the obligation did exist at each of the relevant stages.
Judgment date: 13 June 2016.
* * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *