The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming the renewal of his Community Treatment Order (CTO).
The appellant argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by reading in a 'but for the CTO' requirement when assessing whether he met the criteria under the Mental Health Act, given he was currently asymptomatic due to medication compliance.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while words should not be read into the statute, a proper purposive interpretation of section 15(1.1) inherently accounts for the patient's history and the likelihood of deterioration if left untreated.
