The decision-making of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in New Zealand.

This article reports the findings of a qualitative research project that explored the decision-making of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in New Zealand, providing "thick descriptions" of the hearing process by closely focusing not only on the content of final written decisions, but also how decisions are made and delivered within the context they are formed. Drawing on interviews with tribunal members (n = 14), observation of hearings (n = 11), and review of written decisions (n = 60), the article illustrates how the MHRT attempts to practise in a way that enhances rather than damages ongoing relationships between applicants and clinicians. The factors that constrain its ability to conduct a hearing perceived as fair and participatory by the applicants is considered, and synergies with the international literature are noted in relation to the heavy use of medico-legal language, dominance of public safety concerns, and the covert interventionist practices of the MHRT. The article concludes by highlighting the value of qualitative observations of this decision-making body. While written decisions provide a justification for the outcome decided by the MHRT it leaves out nuances gleaned from in-depth clinical reporting, inquisitorial investigation and unwritten observations during hearings.