Supervision order - Nature of mental impairment - Endanger another person - Adequate community resources for treatment and support.

Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (Tas); ss, 34, 35, 37.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication

1. BI is a 62 year old woman who lives with her husband in Tasmania.
2. On 20 November 1998 a Supreme Court jury found BI not guilty by reason of insanity of the murder of her young daughter and placed her under the authority of a restriction order. On 13 September 2000, Evans J ordered the restriction order be discharged and that BI be released subject to a supervision order. The court ordered:

1. That BI follow the written direction of the Clinical Director of Forensic Mental Health Services, or a psychiatrist holding equivalent position in the State Services, or of his or nominee, as to:

(i) Place of residence and notification of any proposed change of residence; > > (ii) The engagement of and attendance on medical practitioners (including general practitioners, psychiatrists and therapists) for consultation, treatment, assessment and/or review; > > (iii) The taking of medication and submission to the administration of medical treatment; and > > (iv) Attendance as an outpatient at a nominated treatment centre;

1. That BI submit when and where required by the Clinical Director of Forensic Mental Health Services, or the psychiatrist holding equivalent position in the State Service, or his or her nominee, to the taking of blood for analysis of medication levels and such other matters as may be required.
2. Since 2006, when it became mandatory to review supervision orders annually under the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act), the Tribunal has determined that the supervision order is no longer warranted and issued a certificate to BI to allow her to apply to the Supreme Court to have the supervision order revoked.
3. Despite this, BI has not applied to the Supreme Court for revocation out of fear such an application would attract negative media attention.

1. The hearing was conducted at TASCAT premises in Hobart. BI did not attend the hearing. Dr DZ, psychiatric registrar and DT and GN, case managers, attended by audio visual link. UX, acting clinical carer lead, attended in person.
2. The Tribunal had before it the restriction order, supervision order and associated supporting documentation and a report from the Applicant Dr DZ dated 27 March 2025. BI did not file any documents or written submissions.

1. The authority for the Tribunal to review a supervision order is found in section 37 of the Act:

37. Review of persons detained under forensic orders > > (1) A forensic order is to be reviewed under the Mental Health Act 2013 by the Tribunal within 12 months after the order was made and at least once in each period of 12 months afterwards. > > (2) In reviewing a forensic order, the Tribunal is to apply the principle in section 34 and have regard to the matters set out in section 35(1). > > (3) If the Tribunal, on review, determines that a forensic order is no longer warranted or that the conditions of the order are now inappropriate - > > (a) the Tribunal must issue the defendant with a certificate to that effect; and > > (b) the defendant may apply immediately, despite any other provisions of this Act, to the Supreme Court for discharge, revocation or variation of the forensic order. > > (4) If the Tribunal issues a certificate in respect of the discharge of a restriction order, the certificate may include the recommendation of the Tribunal that, should the order be discharged - > > (a) a supervision order or treatment order be made in respect of the defendant; or > > (b) the defendant be released either conditionally or on the conditions specified in the recommendation. > > (5) If the Tribunal issues a certificate in respect of the revocation of a supervision order, the Certificate may include the recommendation of the Tribunal that, should the order be revoked - > > (a) a treatment order be made in respect of the defendant; or > > (b) the defendant be released either unconditionally or on the conditions specified in the recommendation. > > (6) If the Tribunal, on review, issues a certificate in respect of the variation of the conditions of a supervision order, the certificate may include the recommendations of the Tribunal as to what conditions should be included in the order. > > (7) If the Tribunal, on review, determines that a supervision order should be revoked and that, instead, a restriction order should be made in respect of the defendant, the Tribunal is to -

(a) recommend to the Secretary of the responsible Department in relation to the Mental Health Act 2013 that he or she make an application under section 30(1) for the revocation of the supervision order and the making of the restriction order; and

(b) provide a copy of that recommendation to the defendant.

1. In determining proceedings under Division 6 of the Act, the Tribunal is to apply the principles set out in section 34, namely, the principle that restrictions on the defendant's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community; and have regard to the matters set out in s 35(1) which are as follows:

(a) the nature of the defendant's mental impairment or other condition or disability; and

(b) whether the defendant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger another person or other persons generally; and

(c) whether there are adequate recourses available for the treatment and support of the defendant in the community; and

(d) whether the defendant is likely to comply with the conditions of a supervision order; and

(e) other matters that the tribunal thinks relevant.

1. Dr DZ's evidence was presented through his oral evidence at the hearing and his report dated 27 March 2025.
2. Dr DZ said he first met and reviewed BI on 21 March 2025.

Section 35(a) the nature of the defendant's mental impairment or other condition or disability

1. Dr DZ provided BI has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, made in the 1990s. This evidence was uncontested.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that BI's mental impairment is schizoaffective disorder.

Section 35(b) whether the defendant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger another person or other persons generally

1. Dr DZ provided BI is willing to engage with mental health services and her general practitioner, and agreeable to taking her medications as prescribed.
2. In his report Dr DZ said BI reported mild intermittent residual positive psychotic symptoms but with no associated distress, no mood or anxiety symptoms and no thoughts of harming herself. Dr DZ opined BI's response to medications is good.
3. Dr DZ gave evidence that he was not concerned about BI's symptoms because they were intermittent, she knows they are not real and can cope with them.
4. Dr DZ gave evidence that BI had been adherent to treatment for many years, there had been no incidents of BI harming people since 1998 and the risk that she is likely to endanger another person or other persons generally is "very low if at all".
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that if released from the supervision order BI is not likely to endanger another person or other persons generally.

Section 35(c) whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the defendant in the community

1. Dr DZ provided the treating team recommend BI continue current management and treatment including regular psychiatric reviews, case management by her care coordinator and reviews by her general practitioner.
2. Dr DZ reports BI lives in her own home with her husband, has many interests, engages in social activities and is well supported by family and friends.
3. DT gave evidence that she sees BI every 4 to 6 weeks, BI has always attended case management appointments, been open to discuss medication and happy to take medication. BI has also indicated she is willing to work with the treating team in the future.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of BI in the community whether or not she is on a supervision order.

Section 35(d) whether the defendant is likely to comply with the conditions of a supervision order

1. Dr DZ provided there has not been a need to invoke the powers of the supervision order since it was last reviewed, and it was anticipated that without a supervision order BI would continue to engage with mental health services and her general practitioner and take psychotropic medications.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that BI is compliant with the conditions of the supervision order.

Section 35(e) other matters that the court thinks relevant

1. Dr DZ gave evidence BI believes she does not need the supervision order, would like to be off it and no longer has concerns about media reporting the case.

1. The Tribunal determined that the supervision order is no longer warranted and recommends the supervision order be revoked and BI be released unconditionally.
2. The Tribunal issues a certificate.