By Moffat Ndou

Violence committed by individuals with mental illness is a problem in the community. It was foreseeable that the legislature would introduce measures intended to prevent such violence.

Section 40 of the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 (the Act) deals with the apprehension and detention of violent persons suffering from mental illness is such a measure.

However, it is important to guard against the abuse of such measures as it has consequences, one of which is a civil remedy for unlawful apprehension and detention.  The remedy is discussed in detail in this article.

Section 40 of the Act

In terms of s 40 of the Act, if a member of the South African Police Services (SAPS) has reason to believe, from personal observation or from information obtained from a mental health care practitioner, that a person due to his or her mental illness or severe or profound intellectual disability is likely to inflict serious harm to himself, herself or others, the member must apprehend the person and cause that person to be –

• taken to an appropriate health establishment administered under the auspices of the state for assessment of the mental health status of that person; and
• handed over into custody of the head of the health establishment or any other person designated by the head of the health establishment to receive such persons.

If a mental health care practitioner, after the assessment of the mental health user (mental health care user does not only refer to a person receiving care, treatment and rehabilitation services, it also refers to a prospective mental health care user, which includes any person suffering from mental illness) referred by a member of the SAPS, is of the view that the person apprehended is due to mental illness likely to inflict serious harm to himself, herself or others, must admit the person to the health establishment for a period not exceeding 24 hours for an application for involuntary services to be made; or if unlikely to cause harm, he or she must release the person immediately. The application for involuntary services must be made within the 24-hour period after the person is apprehended and if such application has not been made, the mental health care user must be discharged.

It is clear that s 40 of the Act makes provision for a lawful infringement of a person’s liberty. However, failure to comply with the provisions of s 40 may give rise to civil claims for damages –

• first, for unlawful apprehension of a mentally ill person by the SAPS; and
• second, the unlawful detention of a mentally ill person by the head of the establishment or the SAPS. (Landman AA & Landman W A Practitioner’s Guide to the Mental Health Care Act 1ed (Cape Town: Juta 2014) at 19.)

General principles applicable to unlawful arrest and detention by members of SAPS

It is trite law that when it is proved that there was an arrest, the onus rests on the defendant to justify an arrest (see Rudolph and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Another 2009 (5) SA 94 (SCA) at para 14).  The Bill of Rights guarantees the right of security and freedom of the person, which includes the right ‘not to be deprived of freedom arbitra­rily or without just cause’ (s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution). There are two relevant provisions dealing with arrest by members of the SAPS. The first is s 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), which authorises an arrest without a warrant. The other is s 43 of the CPA, which provides that a magistrate may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person on the written application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a public prosecutor or commissioned members of SAPS. Any arrest by a member of the SAPS and the consequent detention in conflict with the provisions of the CPA is unlawful, unless it is specifically authorised in terms of any other laws. Section 40 provides such authority to apprehend and detain mental health care users.

Any detention following an unlawful arrest would be unlawful. The detention of a lawfully arrested person would be unlawful if (the list is not exhaustive):

• The person is detained for a period exceeding the 48-hour period without being brought before the lower court (s 50(1) of the CPA).
• The person is detained in a maximum security section while, he or she was an awaiting prisoner (see Zealand v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2008 (4) SA 458 (CC)).
• The person continues to be detained after his or her conviction had been set aside.

Unlawful apprehension of mental health care users

Before a member of the SAPS is authorised to apprehend a mental health care user he or she must have had reason to believe that a person due to his or her mental illness or severe or profound intellectual disability is likely to inflict serious harm to himself or herself or others. The reason must be based on –

• personal observation; or
• information obtained from a mental health care practitioner.

Section 40 provides a wide discretion on members of the SAPS to decide whether to apprehend persons suffering from mental illness. The implication of this section is that, any member of the SAPS may apprehend any person, provided they have reason to believe and such reason was based on personal observation or from information obtained from a mental health care practitioner.

I submit that failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, would lead to the apprehension being unlawful and the party apprehended will have a civil remedy for damages. The infringement of  s 40 may occur in any of the two ways:

• The member of the SAPS may intentionally decide to apprehend a person without any reason to believe that the person is likely to inflict serious harm to himself or herself or others. Section 40 of the Act should be viewed in light of the authority of members of the SAPS to arrest persons in terms of the CPA. Members of the SAPS do not have the authority to apprehend any person without limitation.
• Even if a member of the SAPS has ‘reason to believe’, it might be an unlawful apprehension if such reason cannot be objectively justified. In Vumba Intertrade CC v Geometric Intertrade CC 2001 (2) SA 1068 (W) at 1071 F-H, the court, in interpreting the phrase ‘reason to believe’ in respect of s 8 of the Close Corporation Act 69 of 1984, made the following observations:

‘Although the phrase “there is reason to believe” places a much lighter burden of proof on an applicant for security than for instance, “the court is satisfied”, the “reason to believe” must be constituted by facts giving rise to such belief. A blind belief or a belief based on such information or hearsay evidence as a reasonable man ought or could not give credence to does not suffice’. There must be facts that the member of the SAPS must rely on, that indicate that there is a reason to believe that the person is likely to inflict serious harm to himself, herself or others. I submit that it is not sufficient that the member of the SAPS had ‘reason to believe’; it must be a belief which is objectively based on facts giving rise to such belief. This is only relevant to a belief based on personal observation of a member of the SAPS.

Any infringement of s 40 of the Act would mean that the SAPS is liable for unlawful apprehension of a mental health care user.

Unlawful detention

After the mental health care user is apprehended, the member of the SAPS must ensure that the mental health care user is handed over into custody of the head of the health establishment. The head of the health establishment must decide whether the person apprehended is due to mental illness likely to inflict serious harm to himself, herself or others, in which case the mental health care user must be detained for a period not exceeding 24 hours; or unlikely to cause harm, in which case the mental health-care user must be released immediately. If the head of the establishment decides to detain the mental health-care user, he or she must bring an application for involuntary services. If the application for involuntary services is not made within 24 hours, the mental health care user must be discharged.

From the reading of s 40 of the Act, it is clear that the detention of a mental health care user is unlawful if he or she –

• is detained but is not likely to inflict serious harm to himself, herself or others; or
• is detained for more than 24 hours without an application for involuntary services.

If the head of the establishment detains a person, whether intentionally or negligently, not qualifying in terms of s 40 of the Act, it will amount to an unlawful detention. This is regardless of the legality of the apprehension by the member of the SAPS. If the mental health care user qualifies to be detained, the detention should not be for more than 24 hours, unless an application for voluntary services is made within 24 hours. The detention of a person for more than 24 hours would be a violation of s 40 of the Act and s 12 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, in Zealand, found the detention of a lawfully arrested prisoner in a manner that violated s 12 of the Constitution amounted to an unlawful detention.

Section 50 of the CPA provides guidance in understanding the prohibition of the detention of mental health care users for a period exceeding 24 hours without an application for involuntary services. In terms of s 50 of the CPA, any person arrested and not granted bail must be brought before a lower court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours, after the arrest. If the arrested person is detained for more than 48 hours without being brought to the lower court as soon as reasonably possible, he or she has a claim for unlawful detention (see Mashilo and Another v Prinsloo [2013] JOL 30300 (SCA)). The same principle applies to the detention of mental health care users for a period exceeding 24 hours.

There is also a possibility of the SAPS detaining a mental health care user after the apprehension. Section 40 of the Act only authorises the SAPS to apprehend and handover the mental health care user to the head of the health establishment. Detention of mental health care users by the SAPS would be in breach of s 40 of the Act and such detention would be unlawful.

Conclusion

The apprehension and detention of mental health care users must be done in terms of s 40 of the Act. Failing to comply with the provisions of s 40 exposes the parties, involved in the apprehension and detention of mental health care users, to a possible claim for unlawful apprehension and detention. A comparison can be drawn with the claim for unlawful arrest and detention in respect of failure to comply with the provisions of the CPA. Failure to comply with the provisions of the CPA in the arrest and detention of a person would amount to an unlawful arrest and/or detention, unless the arrest and/or detention can be justified. The same principles apply to the apprehension and detention of mental health care users in terms of s 40 of the Act.

Moffat Ndou LLB (UJ) is a law researcher at North West High Court in Mafikeng.

This article was first published in De Rebus in 2015 (Sep) DR 34.