Better laws for coercive psychiatric treatment: lessons from the Waterlow case

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to use the circumstances surrounding the trial of Antony Waterlow to consider the statutory mechanisms for coercive treatment of people with mental illness in Australasia. Method: The facts in R v Waterlow are examined in the light of a review of Australasia’s mental health legislation and recent empirical work on the ability to usefully categorise patients by their likelihood to harm others. Results: Arguably a major reason for Mr Waterlow’s not receiving effective psychiatric treatment prior to the killings was that the doctors who examined him did not think they had reasonable grounds for believing that detention was necessary for the protection of others from serious harm. Conclusions: The tragedy of the Waterlow matter provides further impetus to a much wider call for the move to capacity-based mental health legislation.