Supervision order - Nature of mental impairment - Endanger another person - Adequate community resources for treatment and support - Compliance with order - Recommendation to revoke supervision order.

Mental Health Act 2013; ss 34, 35, 37;

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. BNI is a 29 year old woman who resides in [a Tasmanian city] where she lives with her daughter.
2. On 10 June 2015 BNI was convicted of one count of wounding, contrary to s 172 of the Criminal Code Act 1924.
3. The index offence occurred in September 2013 when BNI was 17 years old and was living with her mother. BNI struck her mother once to the head with a knife while her mother slept, inflicting a minor wound. At the time of sentencing BNI was the subject of a treatment order, which was discharged on 20 July 2015. The sentencing judge noted that BNI had been diagnosed with schizophrenia with a differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and that at the time of the offence BNI was mentally unwell and that her thought processes were disordered. The sentencing judge noted that there was no suggestion that, save when under the effect of mental illness, BNI had a general propensity for violence.
4. The supervision order was made on conditions, namely that BNI comply with all reasonable directions of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his nominee as to:

(a) The taking of medication.

(b) Submission to treatment.

(c) Attendance upon and engagement with medical and health practitioners for the purpose of assessment, consultation, treatment and review.

(d) Attendance at drug and alcohol rehabilitation sessions.

(e) Travel and leaving the State of Tasmania.

(f) Not use any substance of abuse and submit to urine and blood screening in respect of such substances as directed.

(g) Permit staff from Forensic Mental Health Services to visit her at her place of residence.

(h) Inform Forensic Mental Health Services of her place of residence from time to time and any change in such place of residence.

1. The supervision order was first reviewed by the Tribunal on 8 June 2016. At that time the Tribunal determined that the order was still warranted and the conditions for the order remained appropriate. On 6 September 2017 and 5 September 2018, the Tribunal determined that the supervision order was no longer warranted and recommended the supervision order be revoked. From 2019 - 2024, no certificate was issued, recommending the revocation of the supervision order.
2. On 29 August 2025, the Tribunal conducted a review of the supervision order for BNI and after hearing evidence determined to issue a certificate.

1. The hearing was conducted at the Tribunal rooms at 38 Barrack Street Hobart with Dr DI, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist from Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CMHS), and TB, case manager, attending via video link. BNI did not attend the hearing.

1. The Tribunal's power to review a supervision order is in s 37 of the Mental Health Act 2013 (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 principal in section 34 and have regards 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 unconditionally or on the conditions specified in the recommendation.

(5) If the Tribunal issues a certificate in respect of the revocations 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 principle set out in s 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 resources 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 DI filed a report with the Tribunal dated 14 August 2025 and gave oral evidence at hearing. We also heard from TB.
2. Dr DI stated that a psychiatrist from the service sees BNI every 6-8 weeks and her case manager, TB, sees her every 2 weeks and has regular phone calls with her. BNI sometimes attends at the clinic and other times she is seen at her home. She is only accepting of TB going inside her home.
3. Dr DI confirmed that BNI has support from her mother and grandmother and looks after her young daughter. There have been periods when there have been concerns about BNI's daughter's attendance at school.

Section 35(1) (a) - the nature of the defendant's mental impairment or other condition or disability

1. At hearing, Dr DI stated BNI has a diagnosis of early onset treatment resistance schizophrenia. Dr DI stated BNI first presented to hospital with psychosis in October 2013 which was a couple of weeks after the index offence. BNI was admitted to hospital and remained as a patient to February 2014. She then had a further admission in July 2014 when she was diagnosed with schizophrenia on a background of using cannabis daily.
2. A neurocognitive assessment was conducted in late 2014 which showed:

... low level functioning over many domains including immediate and short term memory with poor attention, borderline processing speed and borderline working memory. Her visual memory was also restricted. Her overall level of cognitive functioning was in the 'extremely low' range. Her verbal comprehension was particularly poor.

3. Dr DI reported, that in December 2023 a urine drug screen was conducted on BNI which returned positive for amphetamine use. BNI was presenting with negative symptoms, and she was considered for readmission to hospital, however this did not eventuate. Her anti-psychotic medication, Haloperidol, was increased and BNI was closely monitored. In June 2024, BNI's anti-psychotic medication was increased further, and within a couple of months, improvements in her mental state were noted.
4. At hearing, Dr DI confirmed BNI has current marked negative symptoms of a psychotic illness and in addition is suspicious, paranoid and guarded most of the time. BNI continues to have delusions, particularly about the index offence. Her delusions have been erotomaniac in nature, thinking her mother's former partner loved her and sexually assaulted her. While these beliefs continue, BNI is not obsessed by them.
5. We were told by Dr DI, that BNI remains paranoid about her and her daughter's safety and is generally suspicious of others, and is concerned about people coming into her unit, and so keeps her curtains shut. Further, we heard BNI is periodically fixated on being pregnant but won't accept a blood tests or other investigations. Dr DI stated BNI does not accept she has a mental illness and her insight into her illness and the index offence is poor.
6. Dr DI reported that:

There is however evidence of continuing improvement on depot medications with some lessening of rigidity and increased warmth in affect. Her insight into her illness remains very poor.

7. Based on the medical evidence before us, we find BNI has a mental illness and borderline low IQ.

Section 35(1)(b) - whether the defendant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger another person or other persons generally.

1. Dr DI noted the index offence occurred in the context of illicit drug use and before BNI's mental illness was diagnosed and treated.
2. Dr DI reported that BNI has been closely monitored by CFMHS over the years, regularly being reviewed by psychiatrists and having ongoing case management.
3. Dr DI stated she met BNI in March 2025 where BNI presented suspicious and paranoid but noted that overall, there had been improvement in her mental health since her anti-psychotic medication had increased.
4. Dr DI stated that any risk of violence perpetuated by BNI would be against her mother or grandmother, or mental health services on the basis they provide her with treatment she does not wish to have.
5. Dr DI indicated no current concerns exist that BNI will harm others. There is no evidence of any criminal behaviour since the index offence. There are no reports of physical harm to her daughter and her daughter's school remains in close contact with the Forensic Mental Health team. There have been no threats by BNI to mental health staff.
6. Dr DI concluded there is nothing to suggest that BNI is likely to endanger another person or persons generally. She considered the risk of her doing so is low.
7. Based on the evidence before us, we are satisfied that BNI, if released from the supervision order, is not likely to endanger another person or other persons generally.

Section 35(1)(c) - whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support

... remains under the care of the Community Forensic Mental Health team which allows for close monitoring and a low threshold for concern. This is currently important for the health and safety of [BNI] and her daughter.

2. Dr DI confirmed that the CFMHS have adequate resources available to treat BNI as she remains living in the community. The CFMHS provide BNI with regular psychiatric review with a forensic psychiatrist and case management and ongoing treatment and support.
3. We are satisfied there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of BNI by CFMHS, as is evidenced by the management of BNI by CFMHS since she was placed on a supervision order.

Section 35(1)(d) - whether the defendant is likely to comply with the conditions of a supervision order;

1. Dr DI provided that BNI needed some legal order to ensure she continues receiving treatment, as without it, BNI is likely to disengage and cease treatment.
2. Dr DI submitted that it was expected that BNI would continue to comply with the conditions of the supervision order in a similar way to which she has been. She is acquiescing to the treatment provided to her.
3. TB advised that BNI does not want to always follow up with her general practitioner and sometimes refuses tests and investigations for her physical health.
4. Based on all the evidence we find DI is complying with the conditions of the supervision order and acquiescing to treatment and engagement with CFMHS.

Section 35(1)(e) - Other matters the Court thinks relevant

1. Dr DI opined that BNI could be managed under a Treatment Order in the community, and that a Supervision Order was no longer required moving forward. Dr DI reports:

If not on a supervision order, [BNI] should remain initially under the care of the forensic service and any transfer to general adult services should be managed carefully with adequate time for her to build up a therapeutic relationship with the accepting team.

2. Dr DI confirmed that if the Supervision Order was discharged and a Treatment Order be made, that BNI would benefit from remaining with the CFMHS for at least 12 months to ensure her ongoing stability, before a gradual handover to the adult community mental health services.
3. Dr DI's recommendation is that BNI be discharged from the Supervision Order on the basis BNI presents minimal risk currently in respect to reoffending and is now well treated, resulting in a reduction of her psychotic symptoms.
4. We have been told it is BNI's wish for the Supervision Order to be revoked, and if a certificate is issued by the Tribunal, she would, with support pursue this in the Supreme Court.

Applying the principle in s 34 of the Act and having regard to the matters in s 35(1)(a) - (e) inclusive of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the Supervision Order is no longer warranted and issues a certificate.

[BNI] may apply to the Supreme Court of Tasmania to have the Supervision Order revoked.

The Tribunal recommends should the Supervision Order be revoked, a Treatment Order be made for BNI.