Attorney General of New South Wales v Doolan BHT Thompson

Expert Reports

As already stated, the Court has ordered the examination of the defendant by two experts and the reports of those experts have been tendered. Dr Anthony Samuels saw the defendant on 17 March 2021 and the report is based upon that examination and interview and the documents provided to Dr Samuels. Much of the report deals with material that it is unnecessary to recite for the purposes of the issues now to be decided.
During the course of the examination and interview, the defendant reported to Dr Samuels as to his family and history. He reported that his mother was in a nursing home and that he speaks to her by telephone; that he has two brothers and two sisters; the sisters are in Dubbo and Bathurst respectively. He does not talk to his brothers.
Relevantly, the defendant gave information to Dr Samuels as to his children. Dr Samuels reports it in the following way: "Mr Doolan told me that he is a grandfather, that he has 'twenty kids, some in heaven, some down there' (pointing to the ground). He said he has children in Mt Druitt, Walgett, he said he has a daughter, Karen Saunders, in Merrylands but he forgot her number. Mr Doolan said he used to live with 'a lot of girls' but he does not know where they are now." [11]
Under the heading Mental Status Examination, Dr Samuels reports that Mr Doolan said he wanted to leave Sydney, because all his children live in Moree and in the bush. The defendant referred to "babies in the family" and told Dr Samuels that he had made eleven children in the Forensic Hospital and, "now [has] to pay child support". He told Dr Samuels that he did not want to be in a forensic ward and wanted Dr Samuels to "put in a good word" for him. That opinion was based upon the fact that the forensic ward "can't handle my money, I like my own money".
The report of Dr Samuels contains the expression of view of the Doctor as to the psychiatric issues faced by the defendant. The report records: "In terms of a diagnostic formulation, I concur that Mr Doolan has a major neurocognitive disorder, chronic Schizophrenia and polysubstance misuse issues, as well as an unspecified Paraphilic Disorder which becomes more prominent when his mental state is unstable. On the basis of my examination and the material I have reviewed, I concur that Mr Doolan is at high risk of future violence and aggression, he does represent a sexual threat to others and has a high likelihood of engaging in further criminal offending if his mental state is not well controlled or if he is using substances. In addition, because of the severe intellectual disability, Mr Doolan will require a great deal of assistance in regard to day to day functioning." [12]
In answer to a question as to the extent if any that the defendant's psychiatric condition affects his risk of reoffending, Dr Samuels expresses the following opinion: "Mr Doolan's chronic psychotic illness predisposes him to offending through sexual disinhibition and his delusional ideation may also lead to aggression. Mr Doolan's neurocognitive disorder predisposes him to impulsivity and aggression, particularly if he is using substances. His neurocognitive disorder and underlying intellectual disability impact upon his problem solving ability and under stress he may act in an aggressive manner or misinterpret certain situations. His sexual disinhibition seems to be related predominantly to his psychotic illness and when his psychotic symptoms are better controlled it seems that he is less prone to acting on sexual urges." [13]
Further, in answer to a question as to whether the defendant poses a risk of causing serious harm to others if he ceases to be a forensic patient, Dr Samuels expresses the view that the defendant is at risk of physical violence and aggression because of his psychosis and underlying neurocognitive disorder. The risk is compounded by substance use which could further disinhibit him. Dr Samuels expresses the view that that the defendant is also at risk of sexual offending but related mainly to his psychotic illness, although his underlying brain damage may heighten the risk.
In answering a question as to the change that might occur in the risk factors over time, Dr Samuels expresses the view that the risk that the defendant presents is very much related to the control of his psychotic illness. If this is well-controlled then the defendant is likely to be more cooperative and less likely to be aggressive. He is also less likely to be sexually disinhibited. On the other hand, if the defendant were to use illicit substances, this could exacerbate his underlying brain damage as well as his psychotic illness and heighten the risk of physical and sexual violence.
Dr Samuels expresses the view that if the defendant is not in a "well structured and supported environment, his capacity to look after himself would be quite limited and it was evident on examination today that [the defendant] has quite limited skills, having difficulty using a lift, and it seems unlikely that he would be able to competently care for himself without a high level of support."
Dr Samuels expresses the opinion that the continuation of the defendant's forensic patient status would be the most appropriate way to manage the defendant's condition. In that situation, if the defendant were becoming unwell or exhibiting aggressive behaviour and posing a risk of serious harm to others, there is a potential for the defendant to be returned to a Forensic Hospital. The defendant, according to Dr Samuels, would be difficult to manage in a general hospital setting and most general hospital psychiatric units would be quite reluctant to take on the defendant's long-term care and management.
As to the defendant's classification as an involuntary patient under the then Mental Health Act, Dr Samuels expresses the view that he qualifies as an involuntary patient because of his ongoing risk and chronicity and could be maintained on a Community Treatment Order but the options for his care in that situation would be quite limited, if the defendant were to become seriously unwell. Dr Samuels also notes the difficulty of enforcing Community Treatment Orders.
Dr Samuels also deals with the Guardianship Order in relation to the management of his finances in particular and also in relation to residence. Dr Samuels sees a Guardianship Order as being a means by which the defendant's substance abuse could be supervised and the availability of substances minimised. According to Dr Samuels there were no other less restrictive means that are available. Further again, Dr Samuels expresses the view that the risk factors are not going to change in the near future and expresses the view that an extension of the status of the defendant as a forensic patient for a period of 5 years would be appropriate.
Dr Dayalan produced a report dated 9 April 2021. It discusses, as one would expect, the history of the defendant including his medical history; his drug and alcohol history; his history of offending and violent behaviour; his personal and family history; and his psychosexual history. It also expresses a view on his mental state examination. During the course of the time that the defendant was attending on Dr Dayalan for the examination, Dr Dayalan had an exchange with a support staff member that accompanied him.
In the course of the exchange, the staff member reported that the defendant could be impulsive and impatient when accompanied by staff outside of the residence. He would often walk away whilst support staff were dealing with shop assistants or other matters and engage in inappropriate conversations with women in public, often indicating that he would like to have sex with them at which point support staff members have intervened to "de-escalate" the situation.
Nevertheless, there had been no physically aggressive behaviour or indecent exposure. Only male staff members were allocated to the defendant. The defendant also often requested alcohol to drink but had not sought to use illegal drugs and the staff members expressed the view that he continued to present with psychotic symptoms.
Dr Dayalan diagnosed the defendant consistently with the diagnosis expressed by Dr Samuels, except Dr Dayalan was "unable to confirm a diagnosis of sexual paraphilia". Dr Dayalan conducted a risk assessment of the defendant.
In the course of that risk assessment, Dr Dayalan dealt, to some extent again, with the defendant's history including his problems with violence, antisocial behaviour and relationships. The report notes that the defendant had never been employed. It also notes the history of the defendant with substance abuse; major mental disorder; and presenting with antisocial personality disorder/traits relevant to his risk in the future of violence.
The report also discusses the defendant's traumatic experiences during childhood; his violent attitude; and the difficulties with treatment or supervision response. The report notes that the defendant has a long history of non-compliance with treatment and poor response to supervision. Dr Dayalan also remarks on the defendant's limited insight into his mental illness and other difficulties. The report continues in the following terms: "Given the limited insight into his psychiatric conditions and cognitive impairment, challenges can be anticipated in the implementation of plans by professional services. Management of [the defendant] as a forensic patient where his compliance with treatment is closely monitored by the community mental health team and the MHRT will mitigate some of the risk of non-compliance. Ongoing placement in a 24/7 accommodation where access to substances are [sic] restricted will assist with maintaining his abstinence." [14]
The report deals with the question asked of Dr Dayalan as to the extent that each of the psychiatric conditions affect the defendant's risk of reoffending to which Dr Dayalan gives an extensive answer. As to the schizophrenia, Dr Dayalan expresses the view that acute exacerbations of the defendant's schizophrenia will result in confusion. As a consequence, the defendant's impairment in judgement and ability to consider consequences will be further impaired. Further again, the defendant's grandiose beliefs will have a direct bearing on his risk of sexual reoffending.
As to the intellectual disability, Dr Dayalan expresses the view that it contributes to the impaired judgement exhibited during offending behaviour. Intellectual impairment also places him at risk of breaching legal orders due to difficulty with understanding and remembering the conditions imposed by those orders.
Dr Dayalan notes, in the report, that the defendant had suffered an acquired brain injury which indicates potential damage to the frontal lobe, thereby, if it be the case, negatively affecting the defendant's capacity at impulse control which, in turn, will contribute to his risk of reoffending by adversely impacting on the defendant's ability to control his impulses.
Dr Dayalan expresses the view that the features of antisocial disorder/traits with which the defendant has been diagnosed increases the defendant's risk of reoffending because it involves poor impulsivity, consistent irresponsibility, disregard for the safety of others and a tendency for aggression.
Dr Dayalan reiterates that there are a number of historical and dynamic risk factors that increase the defendant's risk of violent behaviour and, given that the index offence had resulted in serious harm to the victim, the risk assessment tools that measure the risk of reoffending with a serious offence of like kind, would suggest that that there was a high risk of causing serious harm to others.
Dr Dayalan expresses the view that the defendant's history indicates that he requires a comprehensive approach to managing his risks and a regime that merely ensured the defendant's compliance with psychiatric medication and abstinence from substances would not effectively manage his risk of serious harm to others. The report noted: "Transition from the Forensic Hospital to the community usually occurs via a medium secure unit that allows for a graded and safe transition into the community. In Mr Doolan's case, he had been deemed inappropriate for referral to medium secure units due to his sexually inappropriate behaviour. He had therefore been directly discharged into the community. Individuals with significant cognitive and functional impairment such as Mr Doolan are anticipated to struggle with such a drastic change in the level of restriction and supervision. In Mr Doolan's case, the problems anticipated with such a transition has [sic] been partly mitigated by placement in 24/7 supported accommodation and the comprehensive nature of the conditions imposed given his forensic patient status. In my opinion, Mr Doolan's risk of causing serious harm to others will be increased if he ceases to be a forensic patient as this allows for a more comprehensive approach to managing his risks." [15]
The report of Dr Dayalan proceeds to comment that a reduction, of any kind, in the level of supervision of the defendant is likely to be associated with increased risk of non-compliance with treatment and a relapse into substance abuse. Dr Dayalan expresses the view that the chronic psychotic illness, from which the defendant suffers, and the risk of substance abuse, which would exacerbate the psychotic symptoms, present a particular challenge, particularly because it is coupled with intellectual disability and poor impulse control.
The challenge would be in managing the defendant's risk of violent and sexually inappropriate behaviour, which will be an ongoing risk irrespective of his placement and level of supervision. However, the level and extent of his supervision and other external measures may reduce the extent of the risk posed.
The report of Dr Dayalan then compares the regime that would apply as a forensic patient as compared to the regime under a Community Treatment Order. The former, being an extension of the status of the defendant as a forensic patient, would allow for periodic evaluation of his treatment and management in the community by the forensic arm of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. This would allow for input from specialist services such as Community Forensic Mental Health Services which would review risk management on a six-monthly basis.
Dr Dayalan expresses the view that further admission to a psychiatric facility, given the extensive period during which the defendant has been at such a facility, would not be likely to influence significantly his long-term risk of engaging in violent or sexually inappropriate behaviour. On the other hand, following admission to an inpatient facility, the defendant could be discharged into the community at the discretion of the medical practitioner without any oversight from the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Those are the two extremes.
The report also expresses the view that Community Treatment Orders are not very effective in the management of individuals who are at risk of becoming itinerant, which is an added risk factor in the case of the defendant.
Fundamentally, the comparison of the different regimes leads Dr Dayalan to recommend that the defendant have his status as a forensic patient extended for a period of 2 years. That recommendation is based upon the clinical opinion and the clinical information that was provided to the doctor.
It is unnecessary to repeat anything further from the two expert reports. The earlier reports and risk assessment material were extensively summarised by Hoeben CJ at CL in the preliminary judgment. [16] It is unnecessary for me to repeat that analysis. All of that material has been read and the summary is adopted as an accurate depiction of the views earlier expressed in relation to the defendant.

Consideration

Before dealing with the issues between the parties in this application, including the determination of whether the plaintiff has satisfied the Court, to a high degree of probability, that the defendant cannot be adequately managed by less restrictive means, it is necessary to compare the regimes that, under the submissions before the Court, the parties prefer.
In Attorney General of NSW v Doolan by his tutor Jennifer Thompson (No 2), [17] Adamson J addressed the differences between the legal regimes for forensic and civil patients. Her Honour was dealing with the terms of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, which has been overtaken by the promulgation of the Act.
Nevertheless, the regimes are insignificantly different. I gratefully adopt the comparison that her Honour described and recite the passage in the following terms: "[100] There are several areas of difference between the legal regimes for forensic and civil patients. The relevant areas of difference are in respect of the following, each of which will be considered in turn: (1) The objects of the legislation; (2) The composition of the Tribunal; (3) Review by the Tribunal; (4) The basis for detention; (5) Release from detention; (6) Imposition of conditions while patient is living in the community; (7) Consequences of breach of conditions." [18]
Her Honour then dealt with each of the criteria, outlined above, in the following passages of her Honour's judgment. [19] Again, I gratefully adopt the comments and the comparison between the two regimes in the judgment of Adamson J that thereafter followed.
On 29 October 2020, the Mental Health Review Tribunal conducted the hearing into the circumstances of the defendant. As a result of that hearing, a decision issued on 12 November 2020.
The effect of the decision was to accept the recommendation of the experts. That recommendation was the subject of significant consensus.
The decision was made to discharge the defendant from the Forensic Hospital within three months following the issuing of the order. The defendant was released and has been living in the community since that time.
In the community, the defendant was put under the care of a case manager from the Granville Assertive Response Team, who manages the defendant in accordance with the NSW Ministry of Health Guidelines for Forensic and Correctional Patient Ground Access, Leave, Handover, Transfer and Release.
The aforesaid management required meetings at the defendant's home and/or the offices of the Team. It also required the defendant be subject to the care of a psychiatrist at Cumberland Hospital during the period of his release.
It required the defendant to accept medication and other treatment prescribed and empowered the psychiatrist, as is the intention of the statutory regime, to direct the defendant to attend a medical health facility and seek admission to that facility as a voluntary patient.
There are also conditions on the consumption of alcohol and drugs, as one would expect. The order/decision of the Tribunal also involved requirements as to accommodation and the notification of the defendant's case manager of any alterations in his accommodation or telephone addresses.
At the time of issuing the orders binding upon the defendant, the Tribunal issued reasons for its decision in which the Tribunal dealt with the provisions of s 43 of the Act. The Tribunal reiterated the defendant's very poor insight into his mental state, his need for treatment and the effect that his illness has on his behaviour. This comment by the Tribunal accords with the consensus of view expressed in the expert reports that have been required by the interim decisions in these proceedings.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal noted the defendant's stability in many aspects of his conduct. Notwithstanding that stability there are demonstrated areas of instability including in areas of relationships and employment, which issues predispose the defendant to violence because of their causative effect on a chaotic and unsupported milliere.
The reasons for the decision also note that the defendant continues to experience symptoms of psychosis, including cognitive and affective instability if his needs are not immediately met. The defendant, according to the reasons, finds it difficult to manage emotional and interpersonal stress.
The Tribunal, in its Determination, referred to the defendant's reluctance to move to his premises on conditional release. It also referred to the opinion of his psychiatrist that the defendant had reached his rehabilitation limits at the Forensic Hospital.
The Tribunal took particular note of the level of staff and monitoring that was to occur during the defendant's conditional release. It is appropriate to recite the following passage of the reasons of the Tribunal: "The level of supervision and monitoring at his proposed accommodation including the need for continual monitoring is likely to be addressed by the level of staff supervision available there. The Tribunal was told that a meeting of stakeholders had taken place in the previous week and further meetings were in the offing, to ensure that Mr Doolan's transition is seamless and without unacceptable risk to himself and to others. It was recognised that he presents a risk of harm to himself and others and also that he presents a significant risk of absconding. … Whilst he undoubtedly presented risks if not properly monitored, the Tribunal was satisfied that provided the additional matters raised by the CSP are attended to and the proposed level of monitoring and supervision takes place, Mr Doolan's conditional release did not pose an unacceptable risk to his safety or the safety of other members of the community. The conditional release order was conditional upon the agreement of the Medical Superintendent and also on the basis that the outstanding matters pertaining to the release had been sufficiently finalised before Mr Doolan is able to go to his new accommodation." [20]
Prior to the issuing of the Conditional Release Order, there had been recent incidents in which the defendant had disclosed sexual disinhibition with staff and other persons. [21] They occurred in or about September 2020. Those incidents were taken into account by the Tribunal in issuing the Conditional Release Order.
The report of Dr Jane Bartels, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Western Sydney Local Health District was compiled on 9 April 2021. Again, it recites the defendant's history and refers to occasional lapses of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards female staff, which had been managed with redirection and counselling and the fact that the last inappropriate behaviour was in late 2019.
The Report refers to the defendant denying thoughts to harm others and the position by the defendant of a basic understanding of repercussions of what would happen if he did harm others. The defendant, according to the report, also displayed a basic and limited understanding of not being sexually inappropriate or approaching and touching women without consent.
The report comes to the conclusion that the risk of violence and inappropriate sexual behaviours have been mitigated by treatment of psychotic symptoms; and continue to be so mitigated or ameliorated by that and by the abstinence from illicit substances, together with secure accommodation and intensive supervision.
Notwithstanding the noted amelioration and/or mitigation, Dr Bartels recommends that the defendant continue his current order for conditional release with no changes.
In the report of Wayne Hunt, Mental Health Clinician at the WSLHD Forensic Community Mental Health Service, dated 29 March 2021, a further assessment and the expression of further opinions is made in relation to the defendant. It is unnecessary to repeat much of that report, but it is necessary to note that the report recommends no change to current plans.
Nevertheless, it also notes that the defendant is compliant with all conditions and happy to provide urine samples for urine drug screening when required and has, in that sense, complied strictly with the forensic order.
The defendant has also tendered a report of Dr Marcelo Rodriguez, Psychologist with the NSW Community Forensic Mental Health Service. Once more, the history of the defendant is outlined including some expressed disinhibition about contact with women and the handling of his finances.
Apparently, the defendant maintained delusions as to the number of children he has fathered and the fact that he could make women pregnant by his thoughts. The report considers that conditional release continues to be an appropriate regime for the defendant and expresses the opinion that conditional release is the least restrictive care consistent with the safe and effective care of the defendant.
The defendant has remained compliant with directions from staff and other appropriate personnel and has, during his release, demonstrated increased efforts to improve his health and well-being, including in relation to the management of his diabetes. There have been no instances where he has been required to involve the intervention of the Tribunal. Nor has he acted in a way that has required chemical restraints and he has behaved appropriately during his conditional release.
The foregoing opinion was expressed by Kalati Perese, Director of Health Care Request, NDIS provider, in a letter dated 21 April 2021. Importantly, the last mentioned report expresses the opinion that if the defendant were to cease to be a forensic patient, there would be no change to the behaviour management plan in relation to accommodation and service provision. In other words, if the Court were to refuse to extend his status, there would be no change to the behaviour management plan for accommodation and service provision.
As earlier stated, the defendant does not take issue with the Court's capacity to be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk. Rather, the defendant is suggesting, and, in that regard is supported by the comments of the Director of Health Care Request, that if the Court were not to extend his current status, there would be no change to the behaviour management plan for his accommodation and service provision and there is no reason why the Court should be satisfied, to a high degree of probability, that the extension of his current status is the least restrictive means by which to manage the defendant's risk adequately.
As earlier stated, the Court is required to take into account: the safety of the community; the reports received from the persons appointed under s 126(5) of the Act to conduct examinations of the defendant; the report of the qualified psychiatrist, registered psychologist or registered medical practitioner, provided under s 125(b); any other report of a qualified psychiatrist, registered psychologist or registered medical practitioner provided in support of the application or by the forensic patient; the order or decision of the Tribunal; any report of the Secretary of the Minister for Health or any other Government departments; the level of compliance by the defendant of the obligations to which the defendant has been subject while, relevantly, on conditional release; the views of the Court that imposed a limiting term; the views of the Court that imposed the existing extension order, being, in this case, the views of Adamson J; and any other information.
Most of the foregoing has been the subject of summary in the earlier parts of these reasons for judgment. The ultimate question to which the Court must direct its attention is whether it is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the forensic patient poses an unacceptable risk of causing serious harm in the absence of the extension that has been sought and whether that risk cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means.
There can be no doubt that the regime, earlier outlined in these reasons, of a continuing Community Treatment Order; a continuing Guardianship Order; continuing NDIS-provided accommodation and casework and supervision; an NDIS-funded coordinator; established or existing coordination and cooperation between each of them and each of the service providers; and admission as an involuntary patient if the defendant's mental health deteriorates, would be a less restrictive means of managing the defendant than the continuation of the defendant as a forensic patient. Would that combination adequately manage the defendant and the risk posed by him?
As to the satisfaction of the Court as to the unacceptability of the risk, there is little or no doubt that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of causing serious harm to others if he were to cease to be a forensic patient. The overwhelming consensus of the experts is that the defendant suffers significant psychoses which were causative of his offending on earlier occasions.
His schizophrenia is treatment resistant and although there has been a significant level of stability displayed by the defendant, those psychoses and the defendant's assessments make it clear that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk. While the Court has said there is "no doubt", the Court need not be persuaded of the unacceptability of the risk beyond reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the Court must be satisfied of the unacceptability of that risk to a high degree of probability which is a level of satisfaction that is significantly higher than the balance of probabilities. The Court is satisfied of that factor to that extent.
The second aspect is more difficult. There can be no doubt that the defendant is currently adequately managed and the reports, particularly the latter reports to which the Court has referred, are testimony to that adequate management. The defendant is to be congratulated on the progress that he has shown.
Were it not for the report from Kalati Perese, the overwhelming body of opinion would be that a continuation of the defendant's status as a forensic patient is the least restrictive means by which he may be adequately managed. However, that report makes clear that if the defendant were to cease to be a forensic patient, then at least in relation to accommodation and service provision there would be no change to the behaviour management plan.
Essentially, the major difference between the combination of requirements to which the defendant refers and the continuation of the defendant as a forensic patient would be the capacity to require the defendant involuntarily to enter a Forensic Hospital and the role of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in the continued review of the defendant. In the absence of the period during which the defendant has been on conditional release, the Court would have no hesitation in being satisfied to a high degree of probability that the least restrictive means that would enable the risk posed by the defendant to be managed adequately would be to continue his status as a forensic patient.
The period during which he has been on conditional release provides evidence to support the submission that the defendant's status as a forensic patient is not the least restrictive means by which the risk posed by the defendant may be adequately managed.
As already stated, during that period, the defendant has not required the intervention of the Tribunal. Nor has the defendant behaved in a manner that has required his involuntary admission to a Forensic Hospital.
Indeed, if the Court could be assured over a longer period than has been the case up until now of the continued behaviour of the defendant, then the Court would have a sufficient basis to qualify the prima facie position otherwise expressed by the vast majority of experts who have expressed an opinion on this question.
The Court is required to determine the matter on the basis of the evidence as it stands. On the current evidence, and given the limited period during which the defendant has been on conditional release, the Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the least restrictive means by which the defendant can be managed adequately is to continue his status as a Forensic Patient and, therefore, to grant the extension order.
However, the evidence suggests that in the not too distant future, the period of his relatively stable behaviour and circumstances, if it were to continue, will be such that that the Court would not be satisfied to the high degree of probability necessary that this more restrictive means is the only manner of adequately managing the defendant.
The fundamental problem for the Court, at this point in time, is the short time period during which the defendant has been on conditional release. There is some significant optimism as a result of the period thus far, during which the defendant has been on conditional release. Yet that period proves the risk posed by the defendant is being adequately managed as a Forensic Patient.
As a consequence of the foregoing, while the Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability of both the unacceptability of the risk and that there are no other less restrictive means that would adequately manage the defendant, the stability and behaviour displayed by the defendant during the period of his conditional release has persuaded the Court that the duration of the extension order should be significantly less than that sought by the Attorney General.
If, as would be hoped, the defendant's behaviour and the effects of his psychiatric conditions continue to stabilise and improve, then one would suspect in a relatively short time the Court would be in a position to be satisfied that a less restrictive means would adequately manage the risk posed by the defendant. For that reason, the Court will extend the status of the defendant as a forensic patient for a period of only 18 months.
It will then be for the Attorney General to determine whether, at the conclusion of that period, it would seek to have the defendant subject to a further extension order and, ultimately, for the Court, as then constituted, to determine whether it is satisfied to a high degree of probability necessary to make such an order. That will, necessarily, be impacted by the behaviour and improvement in condition of the defendant over that period.
The Court makes the following orders: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of s 127 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), the defendant's status as a forensic patient is extended for a period of 18 months from the date of this order; 2. Access to the file in respect of these proceedings is restricted and may only be granted to a non-party with leave of a judge of the Court, and only after the parties have had notice of the non-party's application for access and the parties have been afforded an opportunity to be heard.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (8 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (4)