This article explores the role of the Mental Health Tribunal (the Tribunal) in setting duration of compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act 2014 Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). [Google Scholar] (Vic) (the MH Act) using qualitative analysis of data obtained by a Tribunal working group. It explores the extent to which there is a difference between the duration of treatment orders requested by treating teams and those made by the Tribunal, as well as the factors the Tribunal takes into account in setting a different duration. Results reveal the Tribunal made a treatment order of different (mostly shorter) duration in one out of five hearings. In these cases, two out of four factors identified by the working group were dominant influences: (1) ensuring congruence with the principles of the MH Act; and (2) information presented by one or more participants at the hearing. There were also high levels of attendance from either the patient, their support person or their legal representative when the Tribunal made a treatment order of different duration. This suggests participation by patients and support people at hearings provides the Tribunal with the information it needs to consider the principles under the MH Act meaningfully when exercising its discretion to determine the duration of compulsory treatment orders.

本文探讨了精神健康法庭（法庭）在根据《2014 年精神健康法》设定强制治疗令期限方面的作用2014 年心理健康法（维多利亚州）。 [Google Scholar] （维多利亚州）（ MH 法案）使用法庭工作组获得的数据进行定性分析。它探讨了治疗小组要求的治疗令的持续时间与仲裁庭制定的治疗令的持续时间之间的差异程度，以及仲裁庭在设定不同持续时间时考虑的因素。结果显示，法庭在五分之一的听证会上做出了不同（大多较短）持续时间的治疗令。在这些案例中，工作组确定的四分之二的因素具有主导影响：(1) 确保与MH 法案的原则一致； (2) 听证会上一名或多名参与者提供的信息。当法庭下达不同期限的治疗令时，患者、其支持人员或法律代表的出勤率也很高。这表明患者和支持人员参加听证会为法庭提供了在行使其自由裁量权确定强制治疗令期限时有意义地考虑MH 法案下的原则所需的信息。