Mental Health Act 2013, ss, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49, Sch 1;

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020, s 98.

B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC 10;

CMB v Mental Health Tribunal [2021] TASFC 4;

S v Mental Health Tribunal [2016] TASSC 34.

Mr T MacGregor (Tasmanian Legal Aid) as separate representative

Ms A Brown (Advocacy Tasmania) as advocate for the patient

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication

1. SPX (the patient) is a 16-year-old boy who lives with his family in northern Tasmania. At the time of the application and hearing, he was an involuntary patient at [an approved facility] under the Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas) (the Act).
2. On 11 July 2025, Dr TG (the applicant) filed with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) an application for a treatment order for the patient pursuant to s 37 of the Act. In his application, Dr TG provided the following circumstantial overview:

The patient's psychiatric history began at 14. He experienced episodes of unresponsiveness, memory lapses and significant behavioural changes. Previous psychiatric consultations led to diagnoses of autism and ADHD (more recently). The patient has not been consistently engaged in past treatments and has a history of noncompliance with medications. > > There is nil known history of previous admissions to psychiatric unit or involuntary treatment orders. > > Substance use is significant: daily cannabis (bong, previously prescribed CBD flower with THC), weekly alcohol (cheap, high-strength products) and intermittent use of MDMA, mushrooms, methamphetamine. He reports using substances to dampen hallucinations and manage distress, though acknowledges potential for worsening symptoms. > > There is a history of trauma. > > The patient has been under the care of CAMHS team since late 2022. Over the past 18 months, the patient has presented with symptoms of psychosis, which have worsened over past few months.

3. Dr TG sought an interim treatment order pursuant to s 38 of the Act. On 11 July 2025, a single Member of the Tribunal made an interim treatment order, effective until 21 July 2024 at 4.45pm, in relation to the patient in the following terms:

1. is authority for the patient to be admitted to and if necessary detained in an approved facility for the purposes of receiving treatment;
2. authorises a combination of treatment settings and the admission or readmission of the patient to those settings, including treatment in the community; and

1. The patient is to take the following medication (depending on clinical indication): 1. Antipsychotic medication 2. Mood stabilising medication 3. Antidepressant medication 4. Benzodiazepine medication 5. 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.

1. 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.
2. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) appointments (inclusive of home visits as arranged when being treated in the community.
3. On 14 July 2025, upon making the interim treatment order, the Tribunal Member also made an order for the patient to be separately represented in relation to the application for treatment order, pursuant to s 98 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020. The member provided brief reasons for the order being made, including:

... The patient is a 16-year-old boy with a psychiatric history which commenced at age 14. He has not consistently engaged with treatment and has been non-compliant with medication. > > .... Over the past 18 months has presented with symptoms of psychosis...and on this current presentation with command hallucinations, significant substances use contributing to his psychotic and affective symptoms. It is reported he is a risk to himself and others.... > > ...The patient will require the assistance of a separate representative to go through the application and supporting documentation with him, advise him of the legislation underpinning the application and support him throughout the hearing process.

4. A Notice of Hearing was issued by the Tribunal advising that a hearing to determine the application for a treatment order would be held on 18 July 2025 before a three-member panel of the Tribunal.
5. The hearing proceeded on 18 July 2025 and was heard at the Tribunal's premises, 38 Barrack Street in Hobart. The applicant Dr TG, SPX, his mother TD, and his advocate Ashley Brown attended the hearing by video link. Separate Representative Mr MacGregor appeared in person at the Tribunal premises. At the end of the hearing, we provided our determination and our oral reasons.
6. On 1 August 2025, SPX through Ms Brown of Advocacy Tasmania, requested written reasons. These are our reasons.

1. The Tribunal's authority to make a treatment order is set out in s 39 of the Act. That section provides:

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. > > ....

(3) Despite subsection (2), the Tribunal is not to make a treatment order requiring a patient who is a child to be admitted to and, if necessary, detained in an approved hospital for the purposes of receiving treatment unless it is satisfied that the hospital -

(a) has facilities and staff for the treatment and care of the patient; and

(b) is, in the circumstances, the most appropriate place available to accommodate the patient.

1. Section 39(1)(b) requires that the requirements under s 37 must have been met by the application before the Tribunal can be satisfied that a treatment order should be made. Section 37 provides:

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).

2. Accordingly, we need to be satisfied that the person that is subject to an application meets the treatment criteria provided under s 40:

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.

3. Additionally, in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction to issue a treatment order under s 39, we must consider the objectives outlined in s 12 of the Act:

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.

4. Finally in exercising our responsibilities under the Act we must consider the mental health service delivery principles set out in Sch 1 of the Act. Schedule 1 provides:

Schedule 1 - Mental health service delivery principles > > (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 including, but not limited to - > > (i) needs relating to culture, language, age, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual preference, sexuality or other personal factors; and > > (ii) in relation to patients who are Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders, that there is a recognition of and response to their distinct cultural and identity needs; and > > (iii) needs that require recognition of and response to relevant cultural and identity needs generally; and > > (iv) needs related to trauma-informed care; > > (e) to emphasise and value promotion, prevention and early detection and intervention; > > (f) to seek to bring about the best therapeutic outcomes, including the use of evidence-based care, 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, carers, children 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 decisions including decisions about the person's assessment, treatment and recovery that involve a degree of risk; > > (k) to involve persons receiving services, and where appropriate their families, carers, children 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 and to have robust clinical governance and quality and safety processes; > > (q) to recognise and be responsive to national and international clinical, technical and human rights trends, developments and advances and meet the requirements for national accreditation; > > (r) to ensure that persons receiving mental health services have their medical and other health needs, including any alcohol and other addiction problems, recognised and responded to; > > (s) to ensure that the best interests of children and young persons are recognised and promoted as a primary consideration, including receiving services separately from adults, whenever possible; > > (t) to ensure that the needs, wellbeing and safety of children, and other dependants, of persons receiving mental health services are recognised and protected; > > (u) to ensure that staff working in mental health services have access to the support, supervision and appropriate training, including cultural diversity training, required to maintain quality, safety and a highly skilled workforce; > > (v) to provide a mental health service that - > > (i) is easily accessible, and safe; and > > (ii) provides persons with mental illness with timely treatment, care and support that is high quality and based on contemporary best-practice principles; and > > (iii) promotes recovery in the least restrictive manner that is consistent with the needs of persons with mental illness; > > (w) to ensure that people who require mental health care and treatment have timely referrals, and access to specialist mental health services, when appropriate.

1. Turning specifically to the treatment criteria of which we must be satisfied, before we can make a treatment order in respect of SPX.

The person has a mental illness pursuant to s 40(a)

1. Section 4 of the Act defines mental illness as:

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

1. Dr TG's application for the treatment order outlined:

the patient reports chronic auditory hallucinations (muffled, external, multiple voices, often female, sometimes angelic, occasionally derogatory/commanding), it started when he was 14/15 mostly as noises but this has escalated in frequency and intensity over the past few months. Visual hallucinations including black figures, jester-like faces and other forms, with onset more recently (approx. 1 year). He describes episodes of thought blocking (evident during interaction), memory lapses, derealisation and periods of unresponsiveness. This is a history of acting on hallucinatory commands (e.g. moving objects, aggression towards others during dissociative episodes). > > The patient reports paranoia and occasional somatic hallucinations. > > Neurovegetative symptoms: poor sleep, irregular appetite, low energy and fluctuating motivation. The patient describes social withdrawal, loss of interest in previous hobbies and impaired functioning. > > Neurodevelopmental concerns: recent dx of ASD and ADHD, longstanding social communication difficulties, restricted interests, emotional literacy issues and cognitive rigidity.

2. At the hearing, Dr TG provided evidence distinguishing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from symptoms of psychosis. Dr TG stated that it is "not uncommon" for individuals with ASD to experience "some form of sensory sensitivities or perceptual disturbances." However, in relation to SPX, Dr TG observed that the ongoing and escalating perceptual disturbances - in particular, auditory hallucinations involving non-reality-based voices making derogatory statements, issuing commands, and warning that SPX was at risk of harm from others - were atypical for a person with ASD. Dr TG further noted that SPX expressed concern for his safety when in public and reported holding a belief that he is being watched or monitored, and that someone intends to physically harm him. Dr TG concluded that such symptoms were consistent with psychosis rather than ASD.
3. Dr TG further stated that upon SPX's admission, there was evidence of a disturbance in the form of his thoughts. SPX demonstrated difficulty maintaining a coherent conversation, and his thinking lacked linearity and logical progression.
4. In Dr TG's opinion, SPX presents with ASD co-occurring with psychosis. Dr TG considered that while certain sensory sensitivities and perceptual disturbances may be attributable to ASD, the nature, severity, and progression of SPX's symptoms - including persistent auditory hallucinations, persecutory beliefs, and disturbance in thought form - indicated the presence of a psychotic illness alongside his underlying ASD.
5. The advocate for SPX, Ms Brown, submitted that SPX does not accept the diagnosis of psychosis. While SPX acknowledges a dependency on marijuana, he denies the presence of any other substance dependencies.
6. SPX contends that marijuana has been the most effective means of managing his symptoms to date, although he remains open to consideration of pharmaceutical treatments, provided that the treating clinicians can offer a treatment plan that he perceives as effective.
7. Mr MacGregor said that when he spoke with the patient, he was not accepting of the diagnosis of psychosis, but did not disagree with the symptoms as described:

he fully accepts that he has those symptoms and that there may be a mental illness...I understand it is the word which he doesn't agree with.

8. In the absence of any other evidence before the Tribunal, the evidence of Dr TG is accepted and find that criteria s 40(a) 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. His Honour Blow CJ (as he then was) provided interpretative commentary on s 40(b) in two previous decisions.
2. In S v Mental Health Tribunal [2016] TASSC 34, his Honour mentioned at [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. For the purposes of the Act, the word 'likely' means "something more than a remote or theoretical possibility...something that might well happen": B v Mental Health Tribunal [2020] TASSC at [14].
4. In specific reference to this criteria, Dr TG stated that the severity and nature of SPX's psychotic symptoms have resulted in acts of self-harm. In addition, Dr TG considered that there is an unpredictable risk that SPX may cause harm to a family member. This assessment was informed not only by SPX's current presentation but also by information contained within the documentation before the Tribunal, which records past incidents of harm directed towards family members.
5. Dr TG noted that this history, when considered alongside the ongoing impact of SPX's psychosis, supports the view that the risk to others remains present and cannot be reliably predicted.
6. Mr MacGregor outlined that SPX conceded and accepted that if he was to cease medications he would likely deteriorate and there would be potential other risks.
7. We accept the evidence of Dr TG that without treatment SPX's mental illness is likely to deteriorate, thereby causing serious harm to his health or safety. We are satisfied that s 40(b) of the Act 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.

1. In S v Mental Health Tribunal (supra), 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).

2. The written documentation before the Tribunal records that admission to hospital would provide a safe and structured environment in which to stabilise SPX's mental state, reduce environmental stressors, and facilitate engagement in intensive multidisciplinary care, including psychiatric, psychological, and substance use interventions. Admission to the paediatric ward was assessed as inappropriate in light of SPX's psychiatric presentation, associated risks, and developmental age and appearance.
3. It was further noted that a period of observation in hospital, during which SPX would remain drug-free, would allow for the most accurate assessment, diagnosis, and formulation of ongoing treatment. It was anticipated, and supported by clinical evidence, that SPX's mental state would significantly improve with targeted treatment of the current psychotic episode and sustained abstinence from illicit substances.
4. In his oral and written evidence Dr TG stated that SPX is receiving treatment in hospital which includes antipsychotic and anti-depressant. Upon receiving the medication there has been "some definite improvement" in SPX in respect of his agitation and perceptual disturbances. Furthermore, there has been an abstinence from illicit substances whilst as an inpatient.
5. Ms Brown outlined that SPX concurred that the medications prescribed are helping him in "reducing his mental health symptoms" and has "regained some capacity since admission".
6. In specific reference to the treatment settings, Ms Brown, questioned Dr TG regarding the appropriateness of inpatient care, specifically raising concerns that the isolating nature of hospital admission was having a negative impact on SPX's mental health. SPX had expressed significant concerns with the restrictive nature of inpatient care. This was reiterated by Mr MacGregor.
7. Mr MacGregor further submitted that the treating team should give due consideration to providing treatment within a community setting. It was urged that, where clinically appropriate, community-based care might better serve SPX's interests by reducing the potential negative effects associated with inpatient admission and supporting his engagement in a less restrictive environment.
8. In response, Dr TG acknowledged that all psychiatric admissions require a careful balancing of risks and benefits. He conceded that SPX was in a "difficult position" and that the hospital setting is not the most "therapeutic environment" for a person of SPX's age. Nonetheless, Dr TG emphasised that, in order to provide effective care, initial admission is necessary to conduct comprehensive assessments and implement appropriate supports tailored to SPX's needs.
9. While the Tribunal acknowledges that an inpatient setting may present challenges and is not the most therapeutic environment for a person of SPX's age, it nevertheless accepts the evidence that such treatment is appropriate and necessary at this time. The Tribunal is satisfied that inpatient care provides the most appropriate and effective means to stabilise SPX's mental state, enable comprehensive assessment, and facilitate the implementation of a tailored multidisciplinary treatment plan.
10. Section 40(c) of the Act is met.

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

SPX has demonstrated impaired insight and judgment relating to his current illness. > > SPX has not consistently engaged in past treatments and has a history of non-compliance with medications. > > Mother consented to the admission; however SPX was refusing stating he would go in tomorrow with no rationale for this. He wants to get better, and it appears the voices were commanding him to do the opposite and when questioned about it, he became guarded. > > Without support of a treatment order, SPX is likely to disengage from support and treatment of his mental illness.

2. In his oral evidence, Dr TG, outlined he appreciated that SPX had been open and honest with the medical staff and stated that he is unwilling to take medication, as he hasn't found one that he feels is effective for him. So historically he will revert back to using cannabis which he feels is the most effective substance for him.
3. Pursuant to s 9 the Act, a parent may provide consent to treatment on behalf of a child who lacks capacity to do so. At the hearing, Mr MacGregor examined why, in SPX's case, a treatment order was sought rather than proceeding on the basis of parental consent.
4. Dr TG explained that the making of a treatment order would provide a more structured and enforceable framework for SPX's ongoing care, thereby promoting a supportive, safe, and stable family environment in the longer term. Dr TG considered that reliance solely on parental consent would not afford the same level of legal and clinical oversight necessary to address the complexities of SPX's presentation and treatment needs.
5. This position was confirmed by SPX's mother, who expressed her full support for the application and agreed that a treatment order was in SPX's best interests.
6. We accept Dr TG's evidence that SPX has been non-compliant with treatment and that if not on a treatment order it is more probable than not that this will occur again. Further we find that SPX lacks decision making ability and therefore lawful authorisation is required to treat his mental illness, and as such, an order is required for ongoing treatment. We accept that this is not a situation where parental consent is sufficient. We find s 40(d) of the Act 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) For the purposes of this Act, a child is taken to have the capacity to make a decision about his or her own assessment or treatment (decision-making capacity) only if a person or body considering that capacity under this Act is satisfied that -

(a) the child is sufficiently mature to make the decision; and

(b) notwithstanding any impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of the child's mind or brain, the child is able to -

(i) understand information relevant to the decision; and

(ii) retain information relevant to the decision; and

(iii) use or weigh information relevant to the decision; and

(iv) communicate the decision (whether by speech, gesture or other means).

Owing to the active psychosis and withdrawal from THC he is experiencing a significant impairment in his thinking. Since his presentation SPX has not been able to formulate cohesive thoughts. At times he is extremely pre-occupied with his internal perceptual disturbances and not able to converse at all in discussions regarding his assessment or treatment. > > During times of lucidity, SPX is able to converse, though he does not appear to appreciate the gravity of his current condition or the information relevant to deciding his ongoing care and treatment. He has a basic understanding of why he is in hospital... He is not sure what is causing his psychotic experiences or what may be able to reduce or stop such experiences... > > SPX is largely preoccupied with internal stimuli and wanting to leave to have cigarettes and marijuana. He demonstrates impaired capacity to remember and recall instructions and advice given to him regarding his current illness and treatment requirements. > > SPX is of the view that THC is helpful to his internal experiences and unable to weigh up the risks and benefits of his continued use.

2. At hearing, turning to the question of maturity, Dr TG stated that, having engaged with SPX on multiple occasions and considered all relevant clinical and personal information, it was his professional opinion that SPX does not possess the requisite level of maturity to make treatment decisions independently. Dr TG considered that SPX's developmental stage, combined with the effects of his psychiatric condition, significantly limit his ability to act in his own best interests without external support and oversight.
3. In relation to SPX's decision-making capacity, Dr TG gave evidence that SPX has demonstrated an inability to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of psychiatric treatment against his stated preference to continue managing his symptoms through cannabis use. This, in Dr TG's view, evidences a clear deficit in his ability to use and weigh information relevant to his medical decisions.
4. Dr TG further explained that SPX's decision-making is significantly impaired by the influence of his psychotic symptoms, including persistent auditory hallucinations. These voices, which he becomes fixated upon, interfere with his capacity to understand, process, and retain information relevant to his treatment. As a result, SPX is unable to engage in a rational or informed consideration of the treatment options available to him.
5. We find based on Dr TG's evidence and the behaviour of SPX in the past, that SPX does not have maturity, as well as decision making capacity and criteria 40(e) is met.

1. As indicated, we are satisfied that the patient meets the treatment criterion. In exercising our discretion, we are required to take account of the objects of the Act (s 12) and the mental health service delivery principles (Sch 1). Given the evidence before us, we were satisfied that we should exercise our discretion and make a treatment order for SPX
2. We note that without further involvement of the Tribunal, and in the event that an approved medical practitioner assesses SPX as no longer meeting the treatment criteria outlined under s 40 of the Act, then subject to s 49(3), the medical practitioner must discharge the treatment order we have made (s 49(2)) and has the authority to do so (s 49(1)(a)).

1. A treatment order for SPX was made for a period of six months and is due to expire on 17 January 2026, unless discharged by an approved medical practitioner sooner.