Man who sued IMH after being detained gets case thrown out as court finds abuse of process

He also wrote that he was “constantly consciously aware that, at any given point in time, there are hundreds of human beings suffering at the hands of IMH employees in similar ways that I have”.

He also included an affidavit titled “The Truth About Psychiatry”, claiming that psychiatry is harming human beings and is “the most evil hoax in the history of mankind”, the judgment said.

IMH and the other government defendants filed an application to strike out Mr Lee’s action.

Justice Maniam said Mr Lee did not accept that IMH can detain or treat anyone, because the existence of the human mind and the existence of mental diseases “are not facts”.

“The claimant is wrong that the burden of proof rests on IMH to prove that there is such a thing as the human mind, and mental disorders, or to prove that the claimant has a mind or has or had a mental disorder,” said Justice Maniam.

“The claimant sued IMH claiming that IMH had acted unlawfully – it is for him to prove his claim. If proving his claim involves proving that there is no such thing as the human mind, or mental disorders, or that he does not have a mind, or never had a mental disorder, it is for him to prove that.”

He said that, in any event, parliament and the courts have accepted the existence of the human mind and mental disorders. The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act is premised on the existence of these, said the judge.

He found that Mr Lee’s statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. In fact, it included only claims against IMH and not against any other defendant.

SUED FOR ATTENTION: JUDGE

“It is moreover clear that the claimant has not sued the other remaining defendants for any legitimate purpose: he has sued them because he wants to get their attention, but that is not a legitimate reason for suing someone,” said Justice Maniam.

For example, Mr Lee wrote in his statement of claim that his primary reason for including MOH as a defendant was to “make it aware of how the IMH is harming the health of Singapore citizens”.

Mr Lee had initially included the Attorney-General’s Chambers as a defendant but dropped it later. However, he kept the attorney-general as a defendant and made a “settlement proposal” that if the AG would read through his statement of claim and personally send him an email proving he read it, and asked Mr Lee to drop him as a defendant and compensate him S$20,000 for “his time”, Mr Lee would do so.

“This only goes to show that the claimant never had any claim for relief against the Attorney-General, nor was he a necessary or proper party to this suit. The claimant just wanted his attention,” said Justice Maniam.

The same offer was made to the prime minister but for S$50,000.

Justice Maniam noted that Mr Lee’s detention at IMH for treatment was on the basis, among other things, that it was necessary in the interests of his own health or safety, or for the protection of others. 

Justice Maniam also noted that the ulterior motive of another action sought by Mr Lee was an appeal against decisions of a registrar. Mr Lee had asked to “point out to the Supreme Court” that the registrar “is a criminal” and to strongly recommend he be dismissed and reported for criminal prosecution.

Justice Maniam said this was “unacceptable behaviour”.

“If a litigant is dissatisfied with a registrar’s decision, he does have a right to appeal; but to use that appeal not to genuinely seek relief in relation to the decisions under appeal, but rather to agitate for criminal action, dismissal, and for a change of registrar, is a shocking abuse of process,” he said.

“At this juncture, I shall say no more about the claimant’s allegation of criminal conduct, as the claimant says he has initiated criminal proceedings by a magistrate’s complaint.”