Disentangling the laws of consent, guardianship and restrictive practices

This article outlines developments in respect of restrictive practices within the South Australian Jurisdiction. It looks in particular at the South Australian Supreme Court (Full Court) decision in The Public Advocate v C, B in which accommodation in locked wards without detention orders was deemed false imprisonment, and the subsequent South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) decision in Re KF; Re ZT; Re WD in which SACAT inter alia identified numerous restrictive practices as covered by the ordinary rules for consent to medical treatment. The article presents a tabular overview of the different categories of restrictive practices and authorisation requirements in South Australia and offers brief commentary on the consequences of this division.