At­tor­ney Nyree Al­fon­so thinks the State will be hard-pressed to show what pow­ers they were seek­ing to ex­er­cise un­der Part 1 of the Men­tal Health Act to cause Cheryl Miller's de­ten­tion. Un­der Sec­tion (6) of the Act, Al­fon­so said, there were six rea­sons out­lined for a per­son to be ad­mit­ted to a men­tal health in­sti­tu­tion.

"The leg­is­la­tion is quite clear. What it does not say, is that when you get on like a mad per­son or a per­son suf­fer­ing from a men­tal ail­ment or men­tal dis­ease, and you're act­ing in a cer­tain way, we cart you off too. Maybe it should." Al­fon­so said that is how the leg­is­la­tion works. "It is as broad as it is nar­row."

Al­fon­so said the State must be able to show good cause un­der Part 1 of the Act. The Men­tal Health Act of 2008, Al­fon­so said "does not ap­pear to me that you could be hav­ing an oral al­ter­ca­tion with your su­pe­ri­or and you could be cart­ed off to the men­tal in­sti­tu­tion."

Al­fon­so said if a habeas cor­pus was not grant­ed by High Court judge Vashiest Kokaram, Miller would have re­mained in­sti­tu­tion­alised. She said some men­tal pa­tients end up serv­ing life sen­tences in men­tal in­sti­tu­tions. "It's like a jail for them." Fol­low­ing the grant­i­ng of a habeas cor­pus on Fri­day, the State was man­dat­ed to pro­duce any ev­i­dence that Miller fell un­der Sec­tion 15:1 of the Men­tal Health Act, which was the sole ex­pla­na­tion that was giv­en for the re­moval of Miller from her desk.

Sec­tion 15 (1) of the Act de­scribes the cir­cum­stances in which a men­tal health of­fi­cer may ap­pre­hend an in­di­vid­ual for the pur­pose of ad­mis­sion: if a per­son found wan­der­ing at large on a high­way or in any pub­lic place and who, by rea­son of his ap­pear­ance, con­duct or con­ver­sa­tion, a men­tal health of­fi­cer has rea­son to be­lieve is men­tal­ly ill and in need of care and treat­ment in a psy­chi­atric hos­pi­tal or ward, may be tak­en in­to cus­tody and con­veyed to such hos­pi­tal or ward for ad­mis­sion for ob­ser­va­tion in ac­cor­dance with this Sec­tion.

Al­fon­so doubt­ed that Miller was found wan­der­ing on a high­way. Based on Sec­tion (15) 1, Al­fon­so said the shoe is now on the oth­er foot now. "The State has to prove un­der what pow­ers were they pur­port­ing to ex­er­cise why they de­tained the la­dy. Or cart­ed her off."

Should they fail to come up with suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence, Miller can file a law­suit for wrong­ful de­ten­tion. De­ten­tion could be in a po­lice sta­tion, jail or men­tal in­sti­tu­tion.