1. The applicant gave evidence that as at the date of the hearing, TH had been an in-patient for 10 days and still had some residual symptoms of psychosis. The applicant noted that whilst it was plausible that there were aspects of TH's presentation that may be reflective of her drug use that occurred prior to admission, the treating team had formed the view that TH had developed a more chronic, pervasive and ongoing psychotic syndrome that may be present even in the absence of exogenous drug use.
2. The applicant stated that without treatment, TH's symptoms would continue or worsen as she would not be receiving treatment to address the underlying cause of her symptoms with escalation in her risk profile. These risks include risk of harm to self by misadventure, damage to reputation, and risk of fracturing relationships and support networks. The applicant also identified a risk of serious harm to TH from others. There is a relationship between substance use and TH's psychotic episodes. If she were to be untreated there would be a risk of relapse into substance use and a risk of exposure to harm from those people in the community that have exposed TH to trauma in the past.
3. The applicant said that the proposed treatment setting at the moment is as an in-patient but that the goal of care would be an eventual step down to community based psychiatric treatment.
4. The applicant noted that mood stabilising medications may be necessary for the management of an affective component should this become evident. However, according to the applicant, it is difficult to ascertain its presence or absence at the moment as it is the opinion of the treating team that TH still experiences acute psychotic phenomenon.
5. According to the applicant (and as confirmed by TH in these proceedings) TH does now agree that she was in psychosis when she was first admitted to hospital. However, she does not agree that she is currently psychotic, does not agree with the opinion of the treating team that she is likely to have an underlying, longer term psychotic illness and does not agree that she needs antipsychotic treatment.
6. The applicant expressed concern about TH's likely compliance with medication in the community without a treatment order being made given TH's views. He referred to collateral information provided by her community psychiatric team that raised concerns about trials in the community of antipsychotic medication and TH's non-compliance with treatment. The applicant submitted that in the absence of a treatment order and potentially a long-acting injectable form of anti-psychotic medication, TH would be at risk of psychotic relapse in the future.
7. The applicant said that the view of the treating team at the date of the application was that TH did not have decision making capacity in relation to her treatment and was directly due to her psychotic symptoms.
8. The applicant conducted a review of TH on 9 July 2025, the day prior to the hearing before us. Based on that review, he is of the opinion that TH experiences ongoing affect dysregulation, disorganised behaviour, tangentiality and paranoid ideations in relation to the intentions of the treating team and members of the public. He noted in the written application that TH is unable to retain, use or weigh, or communicate information relevant to treatment decisions. The applicant remains of the view that TH does not have decision making capacity.
9. The applicant's evidence is that TH is unable to retain information relevant to treatment decisions. The treating team have reviewed her on multiple occasions. On every review, a lot of the same topics of conversation including goals of care and treatment have to be revisited. TH continues to prioritise her ADHD treatment and management over the proposed antipsychotic treatment and the need to abstain from exogenous drug use. According to the applicant, TH's inability to retain information from previous reviews is driven in part by her psychotic phenomenon.
10. In relation to her ability to communicate, TH still struggles to remain on a specific linear topic when talking with the treating team. She often bounces from one topic to another and can be quite tangential in her thought form. The applicant believes TH is being affected by ongoing symptoms of psychosis.
11. In response to questioning from TH's legal representative, the applicant said that TH's insight has improved but remains partial in nature. Whilst at the time of presentation to hospital, TH felt as though there was never an element of psychosis in the presentation, that has changed and she now agrees that she was psychotic at that time of admission
12. The applicant confirmed that TH has requested a second opinion in relation to the issue of whether she has an underlying illness and this has been arranged to occur with another consultant that works at the hospital.

1. In response to questioning from the Tribunal, TH told us that she feels that she did need to come to hospital at first to get a "bunch" of her diagnoses sorted. She was brought to hospital after staff at the Peacock Centre called an ambulance and she was then admitted.
2. TH told us that she feels like she is presenting extremely well on the ward compared to other patients, she is complaint with medication and has gained 10 kg because of taking olanzapine. She told us that she can make her own decisions and hold a conversation. She feels disheartened that the applicant "is trying to put an order on me" and referred to having been to university, is two subjects away from finishing her teaching degree and that having an order was really going to affect her.
3. TH does not agree with the opinion of the treating team as to the likelihood that she has an underlying and longer-term psychotic illness. She referred to a letter from her private psychiatrist (which was not before the Tribunal) with his diagnostic formulation but said that hasn't been addressed, we assume by the treating team. TH told us that she has complex post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, ADHD and substance use disorder. She has been on the opioid replacement program as well as attending the Bridge outpatient program and sees her private psychologist and psychiatrist. TH described her admission to hospital in March 2025 as a "big accident", that she had a lapse and ended up back in hospital. She referred to consultation with her psychologist who told her that best way to get her medication sorted in within a hospital setting and that is why TH has tried to be compliant with her treatment.
4. TH disputed the views of the doctors currently treating her. She told us that two other doctors that she is used to seeing have told her that she looks healthy and that she is doing really well whereas the applicant and a second doctor say that she is psychotic, cannot hold a conversation or make sense of the world, and this is not the case. When asked by the Tribunal why TH thinks the current treating team see it differently, TH said:

I'm not sure. The doctor shook like that in anger at me and I felt like he took it personally when I asked for a second opinion.

5. We understood that TH was referring to the applicant when she made this statement.
6. In response to questioning by the Tribunal about the applicant's view that although she has improved, TH still has psychotic symptoms, TH responded that she is still not medicated effectively for ADHD and post traumatic stress disorder. She described her ADHD as being very severe.
7. When directly asked by the Tribunal whether it was TH's opinion that those symptoms reflect her ADHD and were not ongoing signs of recovering psychosis, TH said:

...I'm fully out of psychosis now. I can see that I was in psychosis, but I'm no longer presenting psychotic at all. And I do not know why [the applicant] thinks that or what your reason is for that actually.

In response to a question about the treating team's view that TH will need ongoing antipsychotic treatment, TH responded:

I'm open to it. I'm not closed off to it. However, I don't want to be put on a depo shot or anything that's gonna ruin my life because I'm a surfer. I wanna get back into teaching. I wanna have a life and I feel like having this on my record [is] really gonna prevent me from moving forward. It's knocked my confidence a lot because I'm actually really well. And I'm the wellest I've been in a long time...I've spent the last like a year and a half trying my best to get myself sorted. I've been visiting Peacock Centre regularly doing outpatient program, seeing Psych. And then when I got out in here, I just said, well, why don't we just sort all the medication out while I'm in here and they just think I'm paranoid.

When asked by the Tribunal for her views about taking antipsychotic medication for a sustained period beyond her discharge from hospital, TH responded:

I definitely need antipsychotic medication for a short period of time but I don't think I'm gonna need it for life. Like I understand that I need it to bring me back to baseline for my neural pathways to come back, but I don't think I require ...like I was on paliperidone and that affected me very negatively. I actually got cut off that drug because it was too strong for me. It's the ADHD and complex post-traumatic stress disorder that are my issues and that's what's coming out at present. These guys are focused on the paranoia but if I'm abstinent from drugs which I have really been apart from this one hiccup for quite some time.

In response to the Tribunal's question as to whether TH thought there would be any risk to her mental health if she did not have ongoing antipsychotic treatment for quite a few months from now, she said:

No. I think I need the ADHD sorted and that's part of the emotional dysregulation and the paranoia is pretty much gone...I'm not paranoid. I'm not worried about other things, but the doctors are trying to say I am. I've been compliant. All the nurses will back me up. That, like I've been pretty good. I seem normal on the ward...I don't even really understand why I'm in this tribunal to be honest. I find it quite unfair and disheartening...I've had a hiccup. Got these two new doctors I've never met before. I've spoken to the two old doctors who I normally see when I am really unwell and they even said why [are] you still here like it doesn't make sense.

When asked by the Tribunal if she thought she would still need to be in hospital if the Tribunal did not make a treatment order, TH responded:

No, I don't think I still need to be in hospital, although I still need to be seeing my private psychologist, my private psychiatrist, and attempting, obviously the outpatient bridge program as well as others possibly thinking of the NA Narcotics Anonymous meetings. I haven't been to one of those ...in Tasmanian yet.

The Tribunal then asked TH what she would do if the doctors told her that they still really thought that she needed a bit more time in hospital but that it was up to TH to decide, she responded:

I'd go by a doctor's direction. I'm not going to argue with the doctor like, you know, I want to get better, but I don't think having an order on my records [is] really fair. When the job I wanna do, it's really going to affect that. And that's what I'm most worried about.

In response to a question from her legal representative as to how TH feels now compared to when she was first admitted to hospital, she replied:

When I first came I was psychotic and since being in.. my medication [has] been adjusted I've seen the doctor and everything's had to be increased and then he's cut me off the one medication that was helping me a lot.

We understood that the Tribunal was referring to the cessation of diazepam when she made this statement. 15. We also note that during the hearing, TH expressed the view on more than one occasion that the applicant was 'gaslighting' her. We understood by this that TH believed that the doctor was telling the Tribunal that TH does not acknowledge that that she was experiencing psychosis when she was admitted to hospital, when she has told the applicant that she agrees that she was psychotic at that time. We note here that TH's understanding of the applicant's evidence about this issue was not accurate as the applicant had made this point clear in his evidence.

1. Ms Olsson, on behalf of TH, advised that she would not address the criteria in ss 40(a), (b) and (c) but would focus on the areas in dispute concerning ss 40(d) and (e). We understood from this that it was not disputed by her client that the Tribunal could be satisfied that the criteria set out in ss 40(a), (b) and (c) were met.
2. In relation to the criterion set out in s 40(e), Ms Olsson's submission was that the presumption under the Act that her client has decision making capacity has not been displaced. The bar to decision making capacity is a low one and does not require a person to have a perfect or clinical understanding of the medical situation. TH in these proceedings has weighed the advice that she has been given and the benefits of the medications that she's had since coming to hospital. She has said that her mental health has improved quite significantly.
3. In relation to s 7(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, she has weighed those benefits against the risks and the side effects. She has said that she has experienced some weight gain but has made the decision despite that to continue with that medication based on the advice she has been given. The evidence also indicates that TH's insight has improved significantly from when she first presented to hospital and when the application was made. In relation to s 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and the reference to "retain information relevant to the decision", Ms Olsson submitted that a person need only retain information briefly, long enough to make a decision. In relation to s 7(1)(b)(iii) of the Act and the reference to "communicate the decision", Ms Olsson submitted that a person's communication does not need to be perfect or follow a certain style in order for them to be able to effectively communicate.
4. Ms Olsson submitted that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that TH does not have decision making capacity.
5. In relation to the criterion set out in s 40(d), the evidence is that TH has been compliant with her medication and that she would voluntarily engage in treatment. This includes going beyond the proposed treatment and she intends to address her substance use disorder and engage with the Bridge program. TH has also been successful in maintaining appointments in the community with a GP, psychologist, psychiatrist and through the outpatient Bridge program.
6. Ms Olsson submitted that the evidence demonstrated that TH would give weight to the doctor's advice regarding her stay in hospital and, in Ms Olsson's submission, treatment could adequately be given without the need for an involuntary order.
7. Ms Olsson submitted that the application should be dismissed. However, if the Tribunal was satisfied that the treatment criteria were met, then there is still a residual discretion to not make a treatment order having regard to the rights of patients and the service delivery principles in the Act.
8. In Ms Olsson's submission, TH's evidence is that this situation has knocked her confidence, and she is concerned about the implications that such an order could have on her future job opportunities and her recovery more generally in terms of her substance use. It would be appropriate for the Tribunal to promote voluntary decision making in this situation and that the coercive nature of an involuntary order could result in pushing TH away from voluntarily engaging in those services in the future.

1. The applicant's evidence is that at the time of making the application for a treatment order, approximately 3 days after her admission to hospital, TH was acutely psychotic in the context of methamphetamine use. Her symptoms at that time were described as "disorganised, agitated, paranoid delusional ideation, disinhibition affect deregulation and poor sleep". Between that time and over the 7 days since the application was made, the applicant describes TH as having an improved mental state but still experiencing residual symptoms of psychosis. The applicant gave evidence that the treating team has consulted with TH's community psychiatry team and are of the view that TH has likely developed a more chronic, pervasive and ongoing psychotic syndrome that may be present even in the absence of exogenous drug use.
2. The applicant reviewed TH on the day prior to the hearing. He concluded that TH demonstrates affect dysregulation, disorganised behaviour, tangentiality and paranoid ideations in relation to the intentions of the treating team and members of the public.
3. In final submissions the legal representative for TH advised that she would not address the criterion in s 40(a) and would focus instead on the areas in dispute, suggesting that this criterion is not one of matters in dispute. Nevertheless, TH gave evidence that she does not agree that she has any psychotic symptoms, stating "I am fully out of psychosis now", but does acknowledge that she did so when first admitted to hospital. She attributes her symptoms to ADHD and post-traumatic stress disorder.
4. The definition of mental illness in the Act is set out in s 4:

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.

5. Whilst we took account TH's view that she is no longer experiencing symptoms of psychosis, we preferred the evidence of the applicant that, in his professional opinion, TH does experience symptoms of psychosis. Although the treating team have not settled on a diagnosis, we accept the applicant's evidence that TH has likely progressed from a drug induced psychosis to an underlying and longer-term psychotic illness. We further accept that TH experiences a serious impairment of thought. It is possible, although not yet clear, based on the applicant's evidence, whether TH also experiences a serious impairment of mood. We find that TH has a mental illness.

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. The applicant's evidence was that without treatment, TH's symptoms would continue or worsen as she would not be receiving treatment to address the underlying cause of her symptom. The risks to her health and safety include risk of misadventure, damage to reputation, and risk of fracturing relationships and her support networks. The applicant referred to the likelihood of serious harm to TH's safety by others in the community. If she were to be untreated, there would be a risk that TH would relapse into substance use and this expose her to risk of harm from people in the community who have previously exposed her to trauma.
2. In final submissions, the legal representative for TH advised that she would not address the criterion in s 40(b) and would focus instead on the areas in dispute, suggesting that this criterion is not one of matters in dispute. This criterion was not addressed directly by TH in her evidence to the Tribunal.
3. In S v Mental Health Tribunal [2016] TASSC 34 at [22], Blow CJ noted:

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.

4. In CMB v Mental Health Tribunal (No 2) [2021] TASFC 7, the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a decision of Blow CJ concerning the meaning of the term "likely" when used in s 40(b) of the Act. The Court found that Blow CJ was correct to determine in B v Mental Health Tribunal that "likely" means something that might well happen, rather than "more probable than not" as was contended by the appellant.
5. We accepted the evidence of the applicant that in his professional opinion, without treatment, TH's mental illness is likely to seriously harm her mental health. This is because the underlying psychotic illness which the treating team believe she has developed, would not be treated. In these circumstances, it is likely, in the broad sense articulated by Blow CJ in B v Mental Health Tribunal, that her mental health will be seriously harmed as her symptoms would continue and worsen. This would also increase the likelihood of other serious harms to the applicant when she returns to the community as articulated by the applicant. We were satisfied that 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. The third treatment criterion is that the proposed treatment, as defined in s 6(1), will be appropriate and effective:

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.

1. In S v Mental Health Tribunal, Blow CJ also expressed the view, at [23], that the threshold for satisfaction of the criterion in s 40(c) is fairly low.
2. The treatment sought in the application is in-patient care and the administration of antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, mood stabilising and anti-cholinergic medication. The application also seeks authority for TH to be required to attend community health appointments and accept home visits once discharged and to submit to standard bool and urine tests.
3. The applicant's evidence was that antipsychotic medication is the most direct form of treatment to address TH's psychosis. Benzodiazepine medication will aid in the management of tTH's anxiety, distress and withdrawal symptoms. Anti-cholinergic medication may be used to manage anti-psychotic side effects. Mood stabilising medication may become necessary for the management of an affective component should this become evident. The applicant's evidence was that, at this point in time, it is difficult to ascertain the presence or absence of an affective component as TH is still experiencing psychotic phenomenon.
4. In final submissions, the legal representative for TH advised that she would not address the criterion in s 40(c) and would focus instead on the areas in dispute, suggesting that this criterion is not one of matters in dispute.
5. We accepted the evidence of the applicant that in his professional opinion, the proposed treatment is appropriate and will be effective treatment for the mental illness of TH.

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

1. The applicant's evidence concerning this criterion was that due to TH's lack of decision-making capacity, a conclusion which the applicant re-affirmed after reviewing TH on 9 July 2025, treatment could only be adequately given by way of a treatment order.
2. The applicant also gave evidence that although TH now acknowledges that she was experiencing psychosis when she was admitted to hospital, she does not agree that she currently has any symptoms of psychosis despite. The applicant is concerned about TH's compliance with anti-psychotic medication, particularly in the community, without a treatment order. There will potentially be a need for TH to have a long-acting injectable form of antipsychotic medication to treat her illness. TH's community mental health team have raised concerns with the treating team about TH's non-compliance with antipsychotic medications in the past in the community. As TH does not believe she has psychosis or an underlying psychotic illness, the applicant does not believe that the treatment will be able to be given to TH without a treatment order.
3. TH's evidence is that she no longer has any psychotic symptoms. She does not think she still needs to be in hospital for treatment, but that she would engage with the supports that she has in the community (her private psychiatrist, psychologist and other community supports). However, when asked what she would do if the doctors told her that they thought that she needed more time in hospital, TH's evidence was that she would go by the doctor's direction and is not going to argue with the doctor. When asked by the Tribunal for her response to the treating team's view that she will need ongoing antipsychotic treatment, TH indicated that she was "open to it" and "not closed off to it" but that she did not want to be put on "a depo shot" as she felt that would ruin her life. We understood TH's reference to a "depo shot" is the long-acting injectable form of antipsychotic medication referred to by the applicant. TH's over a sustained period was that:

I definitely need antipsychotic medication for a short period of time but I don't think I'm gonna need it for life. Like I understand that I need it to bring me back to baseline for my neural pathways to come back but I don't think I require...I was on paliperidone and that affected me very negatively. I actually got cut off that drug because it was too strong for me. It's the ADHD and complex post-traumatic stress disorder that are my issues and that's what's coming out at present.

4. TH's evidence was that there would not be any risk to her mental health if she did not continue with anti-psychotic treatment, noting that she said that she needs it "for a short period of time".
5. TH's legal representative submitted that TH has been compliant with her medication, that she has indicated that she would voluntarily engage in treatment and she gave evidence that she would give weight to the doctor's advice regarding her stay in hospital. Ms Olsson submitted that treatment could adequately be given with the need for a treatment order.
6. Ultimately, as we found that that TH does not have decision making capacity, we were satisfied that the treatment cannot be given except under a treatment order. However, it is appropriate to address the evidence and submissions made on behalf of TH.
7. We carefully considered TH's evidence in relation to this criterion and had regard to the views she expressed concerning the proposed treatment. In doing so, we took account of the mental health service principles in Sch 1 of the Act, in particular, the principle of promoting "the ability of person with mental illness to make their own choices" (par (j)) and the principle of respecting "the wishes of persons receiving services...to the maximum extent consistent with the health and safety of those person and the safety of others" (par (m)). TH gave evidence in a manner that demonstrated the improvement in her insight noted by the applicant in his evidence but also that it remained partial in nature, as also noted by the applicant. We also had to consider her views in the context of the entirety of the evidence before us including the evidence provided by the applicant.
8. Whilst we accepted that TH may have been genuine in expressing the view that she would accept the proposed treatment, albeit for a "short period", we gave limited weight to the reliability of these views given the entirety of the evidence. TH does not accept the opinion of the applicant or the treating team that she is still experiencing residual psychotic symptoms or their view that she is likely to have an underlying longer-term psychotic illness. She does not believe that there would be any risk to her mental health if she did not have continuing anti-psychotic treatment for a sustained period. During the hearing, TH demonstrated what appeared to be aspects of the "ongoing paranoid ideation in relation to the intentions of the treating team" referenced by the applicant. We accept that TH denies that she has paranoia about this or any other issue, but in our view, her evidence demonstrated that she disagrees not only with the treating team's professional views but also their professionalism. In these circumstances, we gave limited weight to TH's evidence that she would voluntarily remain in hospital for treatment if the treating team recommended that she do so. Nor would she accept any other advice from the treating team if she disagreed with it. We also gave limited weight to TH's evidence that she would voluntarily continue taking antipsychotic medication for anything other than a short period given that she does not agree with her current diagnosis. TH was also explicit in that she would not be prepared to accept an injectable form of antipsychotic medication which is an option the treating team is considering when TH is discharged from hospital.
9. For these reasons, we were satisfied that the treatment cannot be adequately given except under a treatment order.

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

1. Decision making capacity for the purposes of the Act is defined in s 7:

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. The applicant's evidence is that in his professional opinion, TH does not have decision making capacity in relation to her treatment. This is a consequence of the symptoms she continues to experience due to psychosis. In the applicant's opinion, TH does not accept the diagnosis of an ongoing psychotic illness, does not believe that she is experiencing any symptoms of psychosis and is unable to understand the need for it to be treated. She is unable to retain, use or weigh, or communicate information relevant to treatment decisions. She attributes her symptoms to other factors.
3. TH's evidence is that she can make her own decisions and hold a conversation.
4. Ms Olsson submitted that the presumption that her client has decision making capacity has not been displaced and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that TH does not have decision making capacity. TH has weighed the advice she has been given and the benefits of the medications she has had since coming to hospital and has weighed those benefits against the risk including the side effects including weight gain.
5. Our starting point in considering this criterion is the presumption that TH has capacity to make her own decisions about her treatment. We accept that TH has accepted the treatment offered to her during her admission and has done so because she now accepts that she was experiencing psychosis when first admitted to hospital. TH's evidence is that she is prepared to take medication for a short period of time because of the psychosis she experienced when she came into hospital but, from her perspective, has now recovered from so that, in her words, it will bring her back to her baseline.
6. TH rejects the advice provided by the treating team as to the likelihood of an underlying longer term psychotic condition. She has demonstrated an inability to "believe" or use the information given to her by the treating team about her condition (In Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290 (295)). She does not believe that there is a need to have treatment for more than a "short period" to get her back to her baseline, as she sees it, to recover from the psychosis she experienced on admission to hospital. She does not believe there would be any risk to her mental health if she does not continue taking anti-psychotic treatment for more than a "short period" despite the advice of the treating team of the risk of relapse without that treatment.
7. Lack of insight is not a determinative criterion of capacity but is a factual matter relevant to the ability to use and weigh information that may be capable of supporting a finding of a lack of capacity (PBU & NJE v Mental Health Tribunal [2018] VSC 564 (at [187] and [198]).
8. We accept the applicant's opinion that TH lacks insight into her symptoms of psychosis, which she attributes wholly to other factors, is unable to understand the need for it to be treated for more than a short period and is unable to understand the risks involved in not having treatment. We find that, as a consequence, TH is unable use or weigh information relevant to her treatment decisions. We also accept that TH is unable to make the decision because of a disturbance in the functioning of TH's mind by reason of her mental illness.
9. Given this finding, it was not necessary to address the other considerations set out in s 7(1)(b) of the Act.
10. We were satisfied that TH does not currently have decision making capacity as defined in s 7.

1. As indicated, we are satisfied that TH meets the treatment criteria. As we are satisfied that the other requirements set out in s 39 are met, we could proceed to decide whether we should exercise our discretion to make the order, or not, sought by the applicant. In exercising our discretion, we were required to have regard to the objects of the Act (s 12) and the mental health service delivery principles (Sch 1).
2. We considered the submissions made TH's legal representative concerning TH's description of the detrimental impact that these proceedings have had on her confidence and her concerns about the impact it may have on future job prospects and her recovery more generally. She submitted that the Tribunal should promote voluntary decision making in this matter and exercise our discretion to not make a treatment order.
3. Amongst others, we balanced the following relevant considerations:
   • The principle to seek to bring about the best therapeutic outcomes for the patient and to promote her recovery (Sch 1, 1(f))
   • The principle to respect, observe and promote the inherent rights, liberty, dignity, autonomy and self-respect of the patient (Sch 1, 1(a))
   • The principle to restrict the rights of the patient in the least restrictive way and to the least extent consistent with the protection of the patient, the protection of the public and the proper delivery of relevant services (Sch1, 1(b))
   • The objective to promote voluntary over involuntary treatment and the making of free and informed treatment choices (s 12(e))
4. This was a finely balanced decision in the circumstances of a young woman who has already had two hospital admissions to treat drug induced psychosis and is now confronted with the likelihood, in the professional opinion of her treating team, that she has an underlying psychotic disorder that requires treatment. This is made more complex by TH's ongoing psychotic symptoms, which are denied by her, and her very clear opposition to the making of a treatment order.
5. Taking these matters into account, we were satisfied that the treatment order should be made in the terms sought by the applicant for a period of six months, noting that unless the order is discharged sooner, it will be reviewed by the Tribunal within 60 days of it coming into effect.

1. A treatment order in the approved form in the terms sought in the application was issued on 10 July 2025 at 6:08pm. The order will expire on 9 January 2026 at 6:08pm unless discharged sooner or renewed. To preserve the anonymity of the patient the order has not been set out in these reasons.