Mental Health Tribunal Processes and Advocacy Arrangements: “Little Wins” are No Small Feat*

Abstract

This article examines the meaning of advocacy and the absence of advocacy in the context of mental health tribunal processes, and focuses on the adequacy and availability of legal representation. The article reflects on observational and interview data, and considers tribunal processes within the broader context of decision-making about treatment, care, and service delivery. Although effective advocacy can be a powerful tool to achieve positive outcomes for the subjects of tribunal proceedings, existing advocacy arrangements often leave this potential unfulfilled. Barriers include: an unduly narrow focus on the legal issues to be determined by mental health tribunals; a failure to accept the intimate link between such legal issues and the broader health and life needs of mental health service clients; and funding and resource limitations. It is argued that a well-structured, -connected, and -resourced system of advocacy services, combining ongoing independent advocacy with regularized and effective legal representation, should be given serious consideration.