VICPOLS use of Section 351 of the Mental Health Act (the power to apprehend and refer someone for a mental health assessment) is frequently criticised for being inappropriate, coercive, or used as a "catch-all" for complex social issues.

on

Reports from legal advocacy groups, the Victorian Auditor-General, and the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System indicate that while Victoria Police are often the first responders to mental health crises, their use of Section 351 of the Mental Health Act (the power to apprehend and refer someone for a mental health assessment) is frequently criticised for being inappropriate, coercive, or used as a "catch-all" for complex social issues.



Under Section 351, police can apprehend anyone they believe has a mental illness and is at risk of harm. Critics argue this allows police to "medicalise" behaviour to avoid criminal investigations or to manage "difficult" people without clinical training.

Below are 10 examples and systemic contexts where these referrals have been flagged as inappropriate:

1. The "Unnecessary Apprehension" of a Calm Individual

In a case documented by Australian Emergency Law, police used Section 351 to apprehend a man following a domestic argument. Although the man was calm, had put down a weapon, and was willing to go to the hospital voluntarily, police insisted on a forced apprehension. Paramedics on the scene argued it was unnecessary, but police proceeded, causing the man significant further distress.

 * Reference: Australian Emergency Law - Paramedics and the Mentally Ill

2. "Maz": Loss of Employment via Detention

A 2024 study by Taylor & Francis documented "Maz," who was apprehended by police for mental distress. Police transported Maz to a hospital where they were detained and barred from using a phone. Because they could not call their employer to explain their absence, Maz was fired. The referral was deemed inappropriate because it lacked a "least restrictive" approach to communication.

 * Reference: Taylor & Francis - Police Apprehension in Mental Health Contexts

3. "Kath": Property Damage and Abandonment

In the same study, "Kath" experienced a "welfare check" where police forced entry into her home. After referring her to a CAT team/hospital, police left her home unsecured. While she was detained, her house was ransacked and robbed. This highlights the lack of duty of care in "referral-only" police responses.

 * Reference: Taylor & Francis - Police Apprehension in Mental Health Contexts

4. "Alana": Discrediting a Family Violence Victim

The Police Accountability Project (PAP) represented "Alana," a victim of family violence. Instead of investigating her reports of abuse, police focused on her mental health status, using it to justify a "misidentification" of her as the aggressor. Her mental state was used as a reason to "refer" rather than "protect," effectively silencing her criminal complaint.

 * Reference: Inner Melbourne Community Legal - Alana's Story

5. "Ms. G": The Vexatious Label

The Victorian Auditor-General (VAGO) reported on "Ms. G," who made frequent reports to police. Because police lacked mental health literacy, they labeled her a "vexatious complainant" and a "character." It was only after a specialized unit (MHaP) intervened that they realized she had a psychotic illness. The initial police response used "referral" as a way to dismiss her rather than treat her.

 * Reference: VAGO - Mental Health Strategies for the Justice System

6. "Tracey": Misidentification and Referral

Reported by the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, "Tracey" was involved in a mutual argument. Police failed to identify her as the primary victim and instead issued a safety notice against her. This "criminal/mental health" labeling prevented her from accessing victim-specific support, as she was now in the system as a "respondent."

 * Reference: FVRIM Archive - Misidentification Case Study

7. "David": The "Frequent Flyer" Wait

The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) submitted evidence of "David," a man frequently apprehended under Section 351. Police often waited up to six hours with him in hospital corridors. The "inappropriate" aspect here is the use of police as "de facto clinicians," leading to a coercive environment where David would refuse treatment because the police presence made him feel like a criminal.

 * Reference: LIV Submission to Royal Commission

8. "Zulee": Public Stigma and Agoraphobia

"Zulee" was apprehended by police in a public setting. The highly visible nature of the police-led referral (sirens, handcuffs) caused her to develop agoraphobia. She reported that her neighbors now view her as a "danger," an outcome of police handling a health issue as a public order disturbance.

 * Reference: Taylor & Francis Study (2024)

9. Referral as a Substitute for Investigation

The Police Accountability Project has documented systemic instances where victims of crime (often those from marginalized backgrounds) report a theft or assault, only for police to suggest they "see a psychiatrist." This is viewed as an "inappropriate referral" used to close a file without investigation.

 * Reference: Police Accountability Project - Royal Commission Submission

10. Excessive Force in Mental Health Transport

IBAC’s Operation Ross and other special reports have highlighted that police often use "unnecessary force" (pepper spray, physical restraint) when executing mental health referrals. These incidents are often categorized as "health responses" in police logs, masking the fact that the force used was disproportionate to any actual threat.

 * Reference: IBAC - Operation Ross Special Report



Summary of Systemic Issues

| Medicalization of Dissent | Using s351 to "manage" people who are complaining about police conduct. |

| Lack of Clinical Judgment | Police are allowed to apprehend based on "appearance" without medical expertise. |

| Traumatic Transport | The use of police vans and handcuffs for health assessments. |