Interactions of the Mental Health Act and the Habeas Corpus Act: A Research Study on Habeas Corpus in Cases of Emergency Placement and Mandatory Hospitalization
This article is a statistical analysis, based on district court decisions of habeas corpus petitions in cases of emergency placement or mandatory hospitalization, according to the Mental Health Act, between July 2014 and March 2017. It analyzes and questions the reasons provided in court decisions which deny habeas corpus. This research finds that judicial practices are not consistent with each other, including jurisdiction of the courts of appeals which require consistent opinions. In addition, dozens of petitions for habeas corpus of the same case in different courts throughout Taiwan, that were caused by the affairs of Mr. Tin in Taipei, should be limited, within reason, with the qualification of a third party, in order to limit the strain on judicature resources.