Williams v Nielssen and Ors

This is an urgent, ex parte, application by Jason or Jay Williams for an order, or orders, in the nature of habeas corpus. It arises out of events which occurred, at least initially, on or about 16 August 2019 following a report or opinion provided by a psychiatrist, Dr Olav Nielssen. Since that time Mr Williams has essentially been in custody at the Prince of Wales Hospital involuntarily. He tells me that during that time, he has been forcibly injected with drugs against his will and also more recently subjected to threats, including death threats.

He has provided me with an extensive history going back to about June of this year when he says that he was drugged and subject to what sounds like a very brutal rape whilst he was unconscious or semi-conscious. Since then the perpetrators of the drugging and raping, or those behind it, have subjected him to extortion attempts, ongoing demands, and threats against his family and children. The results of this have been devastating to him and indeed, as I understand it, led to the breakdown of his relationship with his wife. He is a barrister and is extremely keen to return to work but at the moment he can’t do so because he is in essence incarcerated against his will.

It is now a little after 8:50pm on Saturday evening, 31 August 2019. The case came before me as Duty Judge following a series of phone calls between Mr Williams and my Associate, Ms O’Shaughnessy. [As a result of those telephone conversations the Court was convened in Court 9B of the Law Courts Building in Queen’s Square. Mr Williams was not present in Court but at the Prince of Wales Hospital in company with one or two nurses. The Court was convened a little after 7pm and there were some technological difficulties. In particular, two or three attempts to organise a telephone link failed on the Court’s system. In the result, my Associate’s mobile telephone device was used to make the call. It was placed near the microphone on the bench in the hope that the recording system in the courtroom would pick up both ends of the conversation. This judgment was communicated using my own mobile telephone while my Associate’s device was used to record the judgment. Whether the hearing itself was recorded is not known at the time of revising this judgment (Sunday 1 September 2019) after it was transcribed by my Associate. If the proceedings were not recorded by the in-court recording system, notes have been made by my Associate and they will kept with the file. Mr Williams objected to the presence of the nurses because he sought to raise matters of “national security”. Having heard from the nurses, who were bound I gather by the protocol of the ward and instructions from treating doctors, I declined to direct them to leave the room.] [1]

The history that Mr Williams has provided includes the fact that he was referred to Dr Nielssen by the NSW Bar Association and voluntarily went. He now seeks to bring an action against a number of named defendants being:

Without meaning to provoke such an action, but based on the history he has provided me, it may also be that the (NSW) Mental Health Review Tribunal could find its way into his initiating process.

One of the difficulties that I have had is that the documentation, which Mr Williams was very keen for me to see, has not been communicated or transmitted to me for various reasons of no great importance (although I don’t by saying that suggest the documentation itself is not important). [My understanding is that there was some reluctance on the part of the hospital staff to email the documents due to their sensitivity but I have no direct knowledge, evidence or submissions relevant to that issue.]

What is significant is that I was told by a nurse who is present that there is some form of review under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) due to occur, [perhaps on Monday 2 September 2019. Mr Williams tells me that that is not true. [It is impossible at this time to resolve that conflict of information.]

Mr Williams also said that he is subject to death threats and is in serious physical danger where he is presently held. Again, a nurse at the hospital, or two nurses I think, although it was very difficult to hear them, also indicated that that history was not true. [2] It is on the basis of that history that he seeks to make the application ex parte, that is to say in the absence of each and every one of the nominated defendants.

Section 71 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) provides for the application for habeas corpus and it goes on to say that there are a number of limitations on such applications: see s 71(2) [3] . I am extremely reluctant to lock Mr Williams out of making his application [by finally determining the application on the material he has elicited over the last hour and a half].

When Mr Williams first came on to the telephone link he indicated that he did not expect that he would be heard tonight, he thought that he would be heard sometime next week. [This is not what was communicated to my Associate. She was told that the plaintiff may not survive until Monday.] Realistically, for this case to be heard properly and with any degree of justice it needs to happen at a time when the Court is sitting normally and there can be a proper link and that the other parties who have an interest in the litigation can be heard.

I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate matter to proceed with ex parte. However I am satisfied that it should be heard urgently if possible and, [perhaps] by the Duty Judge in the next week or so.

I propose to refuse to make the interlocutory or interim orders proposed by Mr Williams simply because I do not have both sides of this history and, wherever I have it, it is in contradiction to what I am being told by Mr Williams. It would be irresponsible of me to make the orders that are sought, which essentially require those who are currently subject to binding orders under the Mental Health Act to release him, first to come to Court and then, if he was successful, to be released into the community so that he can resume his practice. It may ultimately be that those submissions and applications are well-founded but on the material before me, I would simply be guessing.

What I propose to do is to make the following orders, directions and recommendations:

I can indicate that a failure to allow Mr Williams to transmit the documents will likely be considered to be an act of contempt by the Judges of this Court. Mr Williams must be permitted to provide the documentation to the Court on or before Tuesday. The matter then will be heard, hopefully by the Duty Judge, on Wednesday.

Otherwise the interlocutory orders in the application made tonight are refused.

The following discussion then ensued:

The telephone link was then cut, the Court adjourned.