Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas); ss 4, 6, 7, 12, 15, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 50, 52, 53, 138, 195, Sch 1.

B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10

CMB v Mental Health Tribunal [2021] TASFC 4

S v Mental Health Tribunal [2016] TASSC 34

TI (Application for Treatment Order [2022] TASCAT 31

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. TGS is a 44 year old woman who resides in [a Tasmanian city].
2. On 7 March 2025, the applicant, Dr RL lodged with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) an application for a treatment order for TGS pursuant to s 37 of the Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas) (the Act).
3. Dr RL sought an interim treatment order pursuant to s 38 of the Act. On the date of receipt of the application, a single member of the Tribunal made an interim treatment order in relation to TGS, effective to 2.30pm on 17 March 2025, in the following terms:

This Treatment Order: > > (A) is authority for the patient to be admitted to and if necessary detained in an approved facility for the purposes of receiving treatment; > > (B) authorises a combination of treatment settings and the admission or readmission of the patient to those settings, including treatment in the community; and > > (C) authorises the following:

4. The patient is to take the following medication (depending on clinical indication):

Antipsychotic medication > > Mood stabilising medication > > Antidepressant medication > > Benzodiazepine medication > > Anticholinergic medication for treatment of any extrapyramidal side effects from taking antipsychotic medication > > medications may be administered orally and/or by intra-muscular injection and/or by depot injection as prescribed by a treating psychiatrist within clinical guidelines, with dosages adjusted according to clinical response and tolerability.

5. Standard medical and/or blood, and/or urine tests and/or diagnostic radiological and medical imaging tests, as clinically indicated and as directed by the treating team.
6. Adult Community Mental Health Service (ACMHS) appointments (inclusive of home visits as arranged when being treated in the community).

1. A notice of hearing was issued to the parties to the application for a treatment order on 7 March 2025.
2. The application was heard on 12 March 2025. The hearing was conducted by video link. Dr SD from the Tasmanian Health Service participated from the approved hospital where TGS was an inpatient, together with TGS and a registered nurse, FL. TGS's legal counsel Ms Rylee Olsson, her advocate Ms Marita Bullock, her mother and a friend also attended the hearing by video link.
3. The application and supporting documents were filed by Dr RL prior to the hearing. TGS also lodged written evidence, submissions and photographs prior to the hearing, requesting the Tribunal to reject the application.
4. Dr RL in his application states

History of BPD in Victoria and MH admissions at The Alfred Hospital:

• - June 2017 inpatient admission: Anxiety disorder with proposed PTSD
• - November 2020 inpatient admission: Manic episode with DDx of BPAD (commenced lithium and risperidone)
• - January 2021 inpatient admission: Acute distress and functional decline in keeping with personality structure seen in Complex PTSD. Nil overt features of manic relapse (lithium weaned)

PIMS reports admission with mania when pregnant > > Established clusters of elevated behaviours > > PTSD due to violence from ex-partner.

1. Further Dr RL in his application and by way of circumstantial background provides:

Brought in by PACER team [Police Ambulance Clinician Emergency Response] to the RHH ED on 4/3/25 with paranoia and elevated/erratic behaviours. > > In context of her 2.5 year old son [redacted] being removed from her care on 3/3/25 by Child Safety Services on account of multiple reports of concerns about [TGS's] mental health (18 reports in past year). > > [TGS] has expressed significant paranoia towards family members, childcare workers and the Child Safety Services who she alleges have been plotting to take [son] away from her. This includes reports of persistent phone calls/email chains (even throughout the night) addressed to [redacted] previous childcare centres and an alleged incident where TGS followed staff to their car. This has resulted in TGS moving [redacted] to 3 different childcare centres in the past year. > > She has being making bizarre connections between her current life and the historical 'Dirty War' which occurred in Argentina. > > On discussions with [DS] (mum), [TGS] thought she was threatening her with a hammer when she was fixing a cabinet.

2. After hearing evidence and submissions, we determined at the end of the hearing, a treatment order for TGS be made and gave oral reasons for our decision. On the 13 March 2025 Ms Bullock of Advocacy Tasmania requested written reasons.

Section 39 of the Act provides the Tribunal with the authority to make a treatment order:

39. Determination of application for treatment order > > (1) The Tribunal may make a treatment order in respect of a person if, and only if, it is satisfied that - > > (a) an approved medical practitioner has applied for a treatment order in respect of the person; and > > (b) the requirements of section 37 have been met in respect of the application; and > > (c) the person meets the treatment criteria; and > > (d) a treatment plan has been prepared for the person; and > > (e) the requirements of section 53(2) appear to have been met with respect to the treatment plan.

As per s 39(1)(b), the Tribunal can be satisfied that a treatment order should be made where the application has fulfilled the requirements under s 37:

37. Application for treatment order > > (1) Any approved medical practitioner may apply to the Tribunal for a treatment order in respect of a person. > > (2) The application may be made whether or not the person is subject to an assessment order. > > (3) If the person is subject to an assessment order, the application should only be made if - > > (a) the applicant has assessed the person under the authority of the assessment order; and > > (b) the applicant is satisfied from the assessment that the person meets the treatment criteria. > > (4) If the person is not subject to an assessment order, the application should only be made if - > > (a) the person has been assessed by the applicant and one other approved medical practitioner, separately, within the preceding 7 days; and > > (b) the applicant and the other approved medical practitioner are both satisfied from their respective assessments that the person meets the treatment criteria. > > (5) The application in relation to a person is to be in accordance with section 195 and be accompanied by - > > (a) a statement by the applicant affirming that (and explaining how) the person meets the treatment criteria; and > > (b) ... > > (c) an indication as to whether an interim treatment order is needed; and > > (d) if the person is subject to an assessment order, a copy of that order. > > (6) The applicant is to - > > (a) give a copy of the application to the person (together with a statement of rights in a form approved by the President of the Tribunal); and > > (b) place a copy of the application (and accompanying documentation) on the person's clinical record (ensuring that such a clinical record is created if one does not already exist).

Further, we must be satisfied that the patient meets the treatment criteria provided under s 40 of the Act:

40. Treatment criteria > > The treatment criteria in relation to a person are - > > (a) the person has a mental illness; and > > (b) without treatment, the mental illness will, or is likely to, seriously harm - > > (i) the person's health or safety; or > > (ii) the safety of other persons; and > > (c) the treatment will be appropriate and effective in terms of the outcomes referred to in section 6(1) ; and > > (d) the treatment cannot be adequately given except under a treatment order; and > > (e) the person does not have decision-making capacity.

In exercising our discretion whether to renew a treatment order, we are to consider the objects of the Act outlined under s 12:

12. Objects of Act > > The objects of this Act are as follows: > > (a) to provide for the assessment and treatment of persons with mental illnesses; > > (b) to provide for appropriate oversight and safeguards in relation to such assessment and treatment; > > (c) to give everyone involved with such assessment and treatment clear direction as to their rights and responsibilities; > > (d) to provide for such assessment and treatment to be given in the least restrictive setting consistent with clinical need, legal and judicial constraints, public safety and patient health, safety and welfare; > > (e) to promote voluntary over involuntary assessment and treatment and the making of free and informed assessment and treatment choices; > > (f) to provide for all incidental and ancillary matters.

We note that in relation to the requirement for a treatment plan, a treatment plan is defined under s 50 of the Act as an instrument which outlines the treatment the patient is to receive and in accordance with s 52, must be in a form approved by the Chief Civil Psychiatrist. Section 39(1)(e) prescribes that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the requirements of s 53(2) appear to have been met in relation to a treatment plan:

53. Preparation of treatment plan > > (2) In preparing a treatment plan, a medical practitioner - > > (a) is to consult the patient; and > > (b) may, after consulting the patient, consult such other persons as the medical practitioner thinks fit in the circumstances.

We must refer to the mental health service delivery principles when exercising our responsibilities under the Act which is outlined in Sch 1 of the Act (s 15; see B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10 at [39] and CMB v Mental Health Tribunal [2021] TASFC 4 at [31]). Schedule 1 provides:

SCHEDULE 1 - Mental health service delivery principles > > 1. The mental health service delivery principles are as follows: > > (a) to respect, observe and promote the inherent rights, liberty, dignity, autonomy and self-respect of persons with mental illness; > > (b) to interfere with or restrict the rights of persons with mental illness in the least restrictive way and to the least extent consistent with the protection of those persons, the protection of the public and the proper delivery of the relevant service; > > (c) to provide a service that is comprehensive, accessible, inclusive, equitable and free from stigma; > > (d) to be sensitive and responsive to individual needs (whether as to culture, language, age, religion, gender or other factors); > > (e) to emphasise and value promotion, prevention and early detection and intervention; > > (f) to seek to bring about the best therapeutic outcomes and promote patient recovery; > > (g) to provide services that are consistent with patient treatment plans; > > (h) to recognise the difficulty, importance and value of the role played by families, and support persons, of persons with mental illness; > > (i) to recognise, observe and promote the rights, welfare and safety of the children and other dependants of persons with mental illness; > > (j) to promote the ability of persons with mental illness to make their own choices; > > (k) to involve persons receiving services, and where appropriate their families and support persons, in decision-making; > > (l) to recognise families, and support persons, of persons with mental illness as partners, with mental health service providers, in the provision of their treatment and care to the extent that this is appropriate and consistent with their own wishes; > > (m) to respect the wishes of persons receiving services, and the wishes of their families and support persons, to the maximum extent consistent with the health and safety of those persons and the safety of others; > > (n) to promote and enable persons with mental illness to live, work and participate in their own community; > > (o) to operate so as to raise community awareness and understanding of mental illness and to foster community-wide respect for the inherent rights, liberty, dignity, autonomy and self-respect of persons with mental illness; > > (p) to be accountable; > > (q) to recognise and be responsive to national and international clinical, technical and human rights trends, developments and advances.

1. Pursuant to the legislative framework set out above, we need to be satisfied of several procedural matters before deciding whether TGS meets the treatment criteria.
2. The documents lodged by Dr RL, in the absence of any contrary submissions from the patient or her legal representative, led us to conclude that the essential procedural matters had been satisfied, in particular:

(a) the applicant, being Dr RL, is an approved medical practitioner as per s 138 of the Act (s 48(1)); > > (b) the application was made at least 10 days prior to the expiry of the current treatment order (s 48(2)); and > > (c) the application was: lodged using the approved form; includes a copy of the current treatment order; includes particulars on any recommended changes in treatment; includes particulars on any recommended change to the treatment setting; includes a statement by the applicant affirming and explaining how the patient continues to satisfy the treatment criteria and is expected to do so for the period requested for renewal; copies of the application together with a statement of rights were provided by the applicant to the patient; a copy had been placed on the patient's clinical records; and the applicant had made a note on the patient's clinical records of those actions (s 48(3), (4)).

1. At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Olsson advised the Tribunal that all five criteria in s 40 of the Act, were disputed by TGS.
2. We now turn to an examination of the evidence and submissions as to whether the patient meets the treatment criteria.

1. The term "mental illness" is defined under s 4 of the Act:

4. Meaning of mental illness > > (1) For the purposes of this Act - > > (a) a person is taken to have a mental illness if he or she experiences, temporarily, repeatedly or continually - > > (i) a serious impairment of thought (which may include delusions); or > > (ii) a serious impairment of mood, volition, perception or cognition; and > > (b) nothing prevents the serious or permanent physiological, biochemical or psychological effects of alcohol use or drug-taking from being regarded as an indication that a person has a mental illness.

2. In Dr RL's application, he opined that TGS has a suspected relapse of psychosis and displays symptoms of psychosis.

At the time of application TGS's thought form is disorganised and she presents with persecutory delusions, grandiosity (claiming that she knows world famous doctors/actors who can vouch for her). > > She has liable affect and pressured speech which is often circumstantial in nature. There is evidence of derailment. Her insight is poor in that she sees the symptoms as reality based and she doesn't acknowledge having mental illness. She doesn't understand the effect of her behaviour on other people and she doesn't appreciate the need for treatment. Her judgement is impaired in the context of her persecutory delusions.

3. At hearing Dr SD stated TGS had three previous admissions for her mental health in Victoria (in 2017, 2020 and 2021) and indicated the treating team at the [hospital] were waiting on documentation as to those interstate admissions. When questioned further, Dr SD indicated from the little he knew of those admissions, there has been several diagnosis made, including bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) with manic episode, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
4. Dr SD confirmed in respect of this hospital admission TGS was brought into hospital by the PACER team.
5. During the admission Dr SD stated TGS has experienced paranoia against family members, childcare workers, child safety services, and the treating team. Dr SD opined TGS was currently experiencing a relapse of psychosis or a differential diagnosis, given there was a mood element, a manic relapse with psychotic features. Dr SD indicated TGS presented with thought disorder, grandiosity, persecutory delusions, tangential to the point of derailment, racing thoughts, elevated mood and was labile. Dr SD stated he reviewed TGS yesterday who presented as tangential and could not stay on topic.
6. Ms Olsson questioned Dr SD whether TGS's symptoms could be "explained by complex PTSD", to which Dr SD replied they could not. Ms Olsson also asked whether TGS's stress from her son being removed from her and from her hospital admission was a contributing factor to her current presentation. Dr SD confirmed it could be a contributing factor but TGS's current presentation could not be explained as stress as it would not explain her positive symptoms of psychosis including paranoia and thought disorder, to the extent TGS is displaying.
7. Ms Olsson and Ms Bullock both confirmed in their oral submissions, that TGS rejects the diagnosis of schizophrenia but accepts she has PTSD. No alternate medical evidence was provided by TGS, her legal representative or advocate.
8. TGS gave evidence stating she rejected the evidence of Dr SD and when asked whether she accepted she has a mental illness, she stated she has "social anxiety" and "needed treatment for anxiety." TGS stated she had experienced family violence; she was not delusional and does not believe she should be on a treatment order.
9. We accepted the medical evidence of Dr RL and Dr SD that TGS has a mental illness, namely a manic relapse with psychotic features, or a relapse of psychosis. This criterion is met.

Without treatment, the mental illness will, or is likely to, seriously harm the person's health or safety; or the safety of other persons - s 40(b)

1. Under this criterion, we need to be satisfied that without treatment, the patient's mental illness will, or is likely to, seriously harm his health and safety, or the safety of others. His Honour Blow CJ (as he then was) provided interpretative commentary on this criterion in two previous decisions.
2. In S v Mental Health Tribunal [2016] TASSC 34, his Honour mentioned at [22]:

22. The thresholds for the satisfaction of the criteria in s 40(b) and (c) are fairly low. To be satisfied as to (b), a medical practitioner need not be satisfied of any risk to other persons, nor of any risk to the safety of the patient. It is sufficient if the practitioner is satisfied that, without treatment, the mental illness is likely to seriously harm the person's health, which of course includes the person's mental health.

3. His Honour made additional comments regarding this criterion in B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10 at [14]:

14. Section 40(b) is concerned with what is "likely". When that word is used in legislation, it can have various meanings. It can mean "more probable than not" or "more than a 50% chance". It can refer to something that might well happen. It can refer to a possibility that is more than a remote or theoretical possibility. The meaning of the word has been considered in a great many cases. See, for example, Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10; Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union [1979] FCA 85; (1979) 42 FLR 331 at 339; Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2003] EWCA Civ 103; [2003] 3 WLR 999. Much depends on the legislative context. It is significant that the principal purpose or object of s 40(b) is the protection of mentally ill persons and others from risks of harm. Having regard to the purpose and context of the provision, I consider that "likely" should be given a wide interpretation. It should not be interpreted as meaning "more probable than not". It must be interpreted as meaning something more than a remote or theoretical possibility. I think it should be interpreted as referring to something that might well happen. Having regard to the evidence that I have referred to, I consider that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that, without treatment, the appellant's mental illness was "likely" to result in her killing herself. Ground 2 must therefore fail.

4. In the application, Dr RL states in response to s 40(b):

Risk of neglecting her son's care, risk of misadventure in the context of her persecutory delusions, risk of losing ongoing custody over son [redacted] if she continues to exhibit current behaviour. Risk to her reputation. There is a risk of retaliatory violence if others misinterpret her actions.

5. Dr SD reiterated the risks identified by Dr RL in the application. We were advised that TGS's son was currently placed with his grandmother. Dr SD confirmed that without treatment there was a serious risk that TGS's mental health would deteriorate further.
6. Ms Olsson stated this criterion was disputed and noted that TGS strongly disputed that there was any risk of harm to her child, but did not elaborate further.
7. We accepted the evidence of Dr RL and Dr SD, that without treatment, TGS's mental illness is likely to seriously harm her health and safety and the safety of her son. This criterion is met.

The treatment will be appropriate and effective in terms of the outcomes referred to in s 6(1) - s 40(c)

1. We need to be satisfied that the outcome of the proposed treatment is appropriate and effective as per s 6(1) of the Act:

6. Meaning of treatment > > (1) For the purposes of this Act, treatment is the professional intervention necessary to - > > (a) prevent or remedy mental illness; or > > (b) manage and alleviate, where possible, the ill effects of mental illness; or > > (c) reduce the risks that persons with mental illness may, on that account, pose to themselves or others; or > > (d) monitor or evaluate a person's mental state.

2. In S v Mental Health Tribunal, his Honour Blow CJ commented on the interpretation of this criterion at [22] and [23]:

22. The thresholds for the satisfaction of the criteria in s 40(b) and (c) are fairly low. [...] > > 23. Although s 40(c) uses the words "the treatment will be appropriate and effective", it is clear that the legislation is intended to apply to mentally ill individuals whose symptoms cannot be treated or ameliorated in any way. For the purposes of s 40(c) treatment will be "appropriate and effective" if it is treatment directed towards the management of the ill effects of mental illness, or even just the monitoring of a person's mental state: s 6(1)(b) and (d).

3. Dr RL stated in the application that treatment is currently being given at the [hospital] and includes oral antipsychotics; benzodiazepines and PRN anticholinergics and mood stabilisers, as indicated. Also indicated is "routine blood, urine and medical tests and neuro imaging as indicated." In response to why the proposed future treatment is appropriate and effective, Dr RL stated:

Evidence based treatment for BPAD/psychosis; risk mitigation; prevention of relapse and improvement in symptoms and psychosocial function.

4. At hearing, Dr SD gave evidence that TGS is currently receiving diazepam and risperidone, which has resulted in a mild improvement of her mental state, as she is less elevated and slightly less pressured. Dr SD added that TGS is still presenting as tangential, thought disordered and with paranoid persecutory delusions, however with the ongoing treatment it is expected there will be further improvement in the reduction of psychotic symptoms and improvement in her psychosocial function. Dr SD indicated that antipsychotic medication is an accepted and recognised treatment for psychosis. Dr SD also noted TGS was having routine blood tests and imaging and indicated there may be consideration in the future for the use of benzodiazepine medication.
5. Ms Olsson submitted that it is open to the Tribunal to consider factors beyond the clinical efficacy of the treatment, including the distress of TGS that is being caused by the treatment; and harm that is being experienced by reason of the existence of a coercive order. Ms Olsson referred us to the decision of TI (Application for Treatment Order) [2022] TASCAT 31 in support of her submission. In that decision the Tribunal stated:

. ...it can, in our view, be feasible to conclude that treatment may be effective but not appropriate due to factors other than treatment efficacy, such as the patient's short or long term reaction to being treated involuntarily, or otherwise being the subject of an involuntary order. Such a conclusion would only likely arise in limited circumstances where there was clear evidence that the efficacy of treatment was so low, or non-existent, in comparison to the actual, not predicted, harm being dealt to the patient by the existence of the coercive order itself.

6. Ms Olsson stated that in line with the principle of least restrictive if we were to make a treatment order for TGS, benzodiazepine medication should not be included.
7. Given our previously stated view that TGS is currently at serious risk of harm unless she is treated, together with the evidence from Dr SD that since TGS has commenced treatment, there has been evidence of mild improvement in her mental state with the likelihood of her psychotic symptoms reducing further and her psychosocial functioning improving, we find the treatment is appropriate and effective. At arriving at this finding, we have taken account of TGS's views and the applicable objects and principles of the Act, however, we find treatment is certainly "directed towards the management of the ill effects of the patient's mental illness." Further, we note there was no contradictory expert evidence presented to us. This criterion is met.

The treatment cannot be adequately given except under a treatment order - s 40(d)

1. Dr SD stated that TGS demonstrated very poor insight into her illness and the need for treatment. Dr SD indicated TGS had confirmed the previous day at a review, she would cease her medication immediately and leave hospital if not on a treatment order as she does not believe she needs to be in hospital and does not accept the working diagnosis. Dr SD stated TGS is guarded, suspicious and paranoid about the treating team and has not been engaging in discussions about treatment during her admission.
2. Contrary to this, Ms Olsson and Ms Bullock stated TGS was willing to engage in treatment and with the treating team. Ms Olsson noted TGS has sought support from her general practitioner (GP) prior to the admission, which led to her GP calling and involving the PACER team and had sought assistance from external services. TGS believed she had decision making capacity in respect of treatment, but relied on no alternate medical evidence.
3. During the hearing, TGS indicated she didn't believe she should be on a treatment order. She stated she listens to people but then indicated "why would I want to listen to people talking about what's wrong with me" and "I will listen to people who are speaking real information." On another occasion she stated she was willing to work with the doctors and "would not go home today unless the doctors thought I could." When asked what does paliperidone do for her, she indicated "I don't know. I am trying to understand the psychotic symptoms."
4. We accept the evidence of Dr SD that TGS would not accept treatment for her mental illness including regular testing, assessment and case management by mental health services unless the treatment order was in place. We accept Dr SD's evidence that TGS has been displaying paranoia towards the treating team, not wanting to engage with them, and as recently as the day before the hearing indicated she did not accept the diagnosis and did not believe she needed treatment for her current presentation. This finding was further indicated by TGS's evidence at hearing that she does not accept she has a psychotic illness and is not clear what antipsychotic medication does for her. We find that TGS does not have decision making ability in respect of treatment decisions for her mental illness, and lawful authority is required to treat her as an involuntary patient. We find criterion s 40(d) is met.

The person does not have decision-making capacity - s 40(e)

1. The term "decision-making capacity" is defined in s 7 of the Act:

7. Capacity of adults and children to make decisions about their own assessment and treatment > > (1) For the purposes of this Act, an adult is taken to have the capacity to make a decision about his or her own assessment or treatment (decision-making capacity) unless a person or body considering that capacity under this Act is satisfied that - > > (a) he or she is unable to make the decision because of an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of the mind or brain; and > > (b) he or she is unable to - > > (i) understand information relevant to the decision; or > > (ii) retain information relevant to the decision; or > > (iii) use or weigh information relevant to the decision; or > > (iv) communicate the decision (whether by speech, gesture or other means).

2. Dr SD stated TGS lacks decision making capacity to make treatment decisions due to the prominent persecutory delusions and overt thought disorder to the point of derailment, she is currently experiencing. She is preoccupied by her delusions which interferes with her ability to understand information. Due to the persecutory delusions and thought disorder, TGS is unable to use or weigh information about her illness and treatment. Dr SD stated due to her elevated mood TGS will regularly interrupt conversations and is not following and understanding information given to her about her mental illness and treatment of it. Dr SD stated by reason of being so distracted from her delusions she can't retain information sufficiently, despite many attempts to present this information to her. When questioned by Ms Olsson, Dr SD indicated TGS could retain information for a short time. Dr SD also noted that from his review of TGS yesterday, he found it difficult to follow her tangential conversation about unrelated topics and when she was brought back to topic, would go off topic again.
3. Ms Olsson submitted a patient doesn't have to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the treatment and is entitled to have a difference of opinion from that of the treating team. Ms Olsson indicated Dr SD had stated in response to her question that TGS can retain information briefly which is all that is required. Ms Olsson indicated TGS's doubts around the treating team and staff at hospital are reasonable and have a basis in reality in respect of being in a stressful situation. Ms Bullock indicated that TGS's thoughts were disorganised after her son was taken from her.
4. We accept the evidence of Dr SD based on his recent assessment of TGS's decision making capacity and his access to her medical record and reported recent reviews with other clinicians, including the PACER team. We find TGS has impaired decision-making capacity due to an impairment of her mind caused by thought disorder and her preoccupation with persecutory delusions. This prevents TGS from being able to understand and use and weigh information relevant to her treatment, including the benefits of treatment and the risks to her if she does not have treatment for her mental illness. We find TGS can retain information about treatment albeit briefly and is able to communicate her decision. We find criterion s 40(e) is met.

1. We were satisfied on the evidence before us at hearing, that TGS meets the treatment criteria under s 40 of the Act. Further, we are satisfied to exercise our discretion and proceeded to make a treatment order.
2. We made a treatment order for TGS for 6 months, which was in the same terms as the interim order, except antidepressant medication and benzodiazepine medication were not included.