The Tribunal authorises the detention of [DDC] at the [a secure mental health unit], for a period up to and including 13 November 2025.

Authorisation for detention - Contravention of supervision order - Deterioration of mental health - Risk of serious harm.

Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (Tas); s 31;

Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas); ss 12, 68, Sched 1.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 14 August 2025 to consider an application for authorisation for detention of DDC pursuant to s 31 of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act).

1. The Tribunal authorised detention of DDC at the secure mental health unit, for a period up to and including 13 November 2025 pursuant to s 31(6)(c) of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment Act) 1999 (the Act).
2. The Tribunal was satisfied that:

(a) The defendant has contravened, or is likely to contravene, the supervision order; or

(b) There has been, or is likely to be, a serious deterioration in the defendant's mental health; and

(c) That, because of the breach or likely breach of the supervision order or the deterioration or likely deterioration in the defendant's mental health, there is a risk that the defendant will harm himself or another person.

1. DDC (the defendant) is a 42-year-old man, who has an established diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, complicated by substance use and a personality disorder. The defendant is subject to a supervision order (SO) made by Evans J dated 8 July 2011 (the supervision order) after he was convicted of offences which occurred in 2010. The offences included stealing (a motor vehicle), aggravated assault (driving the stolen vehicle into an unmarked car with two police officers in it), unlawfully injuring property (the stolen vehicle and the unmarked police car), driving whilst disqualified, and evading police.
2. The Supreme Court (the Court) ordered that the defendant serve a term of imprisonment of 15 months, that he be eligible to apply for parole after serving 8 months of the sentence, and that upon release, he be subject to the supervision order.
3. The Court ordered:

That upon the defendant's release from prison he be subject to a supervision order and thereby under the supervision of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist > > That the defendant comply with the directions of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist, or his nominee as to:

4. The taking of medication and submitting to the administration of treatment
5. Attending on, and engaging with, medical and health professionals, including psychiatrists, general practitioners, therapists and psychologists ("practitioners") for assessment, consultation, treatment and review
6. His behaviour when he attends on and engages with practitioners, including not abusing practitioners or damaging property where they provide services
7. Attending drug and alcohol rehabilitation sessions
8. Allowing staff of Community Forensic Mental Health Services ("the Service") to visit him at his place of residence and in the community
9. That he authorise the Service to provide and obtain information in relation to him from others, and that he authorise others to provide such information to the Service
10. His place of residence or supervised accommodation and changes in his place of residence, and informing the Service of his place of employment and any changes thereto
11. Complying with house rules in his place of residence or supervised accommodation
12. Not taking substances of abuse and the restricted use of alcohol, and submitting to and not evading urine or blood screening when requested to do so
13. Driving and submitting to assessments for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and authorising the Service to communicate with the Registrar in relation to him
14. Travel and leaving Tasmania

That unless the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his nominee directs otherwise, medication for the treatment of the defendant's mental illness may only be prescribed by practitioners working with the Service or Adult Community Mental Health Services

15. The defendant has been an inpatient at the secure mental health unit in southern Tasmania since 12 June 2025 after being apprehended following charges involving driving with a suspended licence in an uninsured vehicle.
16. The defendant was on authorised unescorted day leave on the 4 August 2025 when he failed to return to the unit. On 5 August 2025, the Tribunal received formal notification from the secure mental health unit that they had administratively discharged the defendant from the unit and his whereabouts were unknown.
17. On 8 August 2025, the defendant was apprehended and taken to an approved hospital in southern Tasmania. A request was made the same day by the clinical director of mental health services in southern Tasmania for the defendant to be transferred and admitted to the secure mental health unit. The statewide speciality director of forensic health services, Dr TB authorised the admission of the defendant to the secure mental health unit and reported that he had been apprehended in the community on breach of conditions of his supervision order and that he had deteriorated in mental state.
18. The defendant was apprehended under s 31 of the Act and readmitted to the secure mental health unit on 8 August 2025 at 12:05pm under s 68(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2013 being subject to a supervision order.
19. Part A: Initial Apprehension of the Defendant notification under s 31 of the Act was filed with the Tribunal by the nurse unit manager at the secure mental health unit, Mr EX on 8 August 2025 at 12:36 pm. Mr EX opined:

I have formed the reasonable belief that the defendant needs to be apprehended and brought to a secure mental health unit under section 31 of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999. > > My reasons for believing the defendant has contravened, or is likely to contravene the Supervision Order or that there has been or, is likely to be, a serious deterioration in the defendants mental health are as follows: > > [DDC] failed to return to [the secure mental health unit] from unescorted leave on 4/8/25. He had been hitherto detained at [the secure mental health unit] under an Authorisation of Detention, having been admitted on apprehension due to breach of conditions of his supervision order. He was not contactable by phone and did not phone [the secure mental health unit] to update regarding his whereabouts or plans. There was information indicating [DDC] did not intend to return to [the secure mental health unit], with a long history of rejecting supervision and breaching conditions under his supervision order. He was administratively discharged on 5/8/25 from [the secure mental health unit] and considered likely to contravene the conditions of his supervision order. He exhibited prominent delusions on assessments in the lead-up to his failure to return from leave, and was overdue to his depot antipsychotic medication, with a high risk of a further serious deterioration in his mental state. There was also a high risk of substance use, which would further increase the risk of serious deterioration in his mental state and likelihood that he would contravene conditions of the supervision order.

20. The Part A initial apprehension notification is valid for 24 hours.
21. The same day, 8 August 2025 at 1:00pm, Dr TB filed Part B: Extension of Period of Apprehension and Part C: Application to the Tribunal for further period of apprehension. Part B authorised the defendant's detention in the secure mental health unit for a period of 72 hours. Dr TB opined:

[DDC] has recently failed to return from unescorted leave from [the secure mental health unit] where he was previously admitted under an Authorisation of Detention due to his risk of breaching SO conditions + with a deteriorated mental state, with recent offending placing himself and others at risk. > > His risk of breaching SO conditions remains high. There is a need for further stabilising of his mental state, required ongoing admission to [the secure mental health unit] for forensic management and treatment which cannot currently be provided in less restrictive settings.

22. In the Part C application made by Dr TB, he applied for Tribunal approval for a further extension of the period of apprehension for a period of three months stating;

[The defendant] remains at high risk of breaching SO conditions at this stage and requires further stabilisation of his mental state with associated risks to others at this time. > > [The defendant] will eventually need a graduated transition back into the community with an opportunity to demonstrate adherence with SO conditions and maintaining stability in his mental state through the process.

23. An interim authorisation for detention order was made by the Tribunal on 8 August 2025 at 4.27pm authorising the detention of the defendant at the secure mental health unit until the Tribunal could determine the application at a hearing.
24. The Tribunal conducted a hearing, constituted by 3 members, on 14 August 2025 to determine the application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal made an order pursuant to s 31(6)(c) of the Act authorising the detention of the defendant at a secure mental health unit for a period up to and including 13 November 2025 (the Order).
25. The defendant made a request for reasons for the Order on 18 August 2025.

1. The hearing was conducted by audio-visual link and telephone. The defendant, together with Dr TB (treating forensic consultant psychiatrist), Dr ZG (treating psychiatric registrar) and nurse T, appeared by audio-visual link from the secure mental health unit. TD (a friend of the defendant) appeared in support of the defendant by telephone link.
2. The application and associated supporting documentation were all filed on behalf of the Chief Psychiatrist (CP) and the Tribunal also had access to documentation in respect to the supervision order, the treatment order and the previous authorisation for detention.

1. The apprehension of a defendant under a supervision order is provided for s 31 of the Act:

31. Apprehension of defendant under supervision order > > (1) In this section - > > prescribed person means - > > (a) the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist; or > > (b) a person who administers, or assists in the administration of, medical treatment to the defendant under a supervision order; or > > (c) a person who is authorised by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist to supervise, wholly or partly, the administration of a supervision order in respect of the defendant; or > > (d) an authorised person; or > > (e) a mental health officer within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2013; or > > (f) a police officer. > > (2) A prescribed person may apprehend a defendant who is subject to a supervision order if the prescribed person believes on reasonable grounds - > > (a) that - > > (i) the defendant has contravened, or is likely to contravene, the supervision order; or > > (ii) there has been, or is likely to be, a serious deterioration in the defendant's mental health; and > > (b) that, because of the breach or likely breach of the supervision order or the deterioration or likely deterioration in the defendant's mental health, there is a risk that the defendant will harm himself, herself or another person. > > (3) As soon as practicable after apprehending a defendant under subsection (2), the prescribed person is to - > > (a) notify the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist of the apprehension; and > > (b) take the defendant to - > > (i) an approved hospital; or > > (ii) a secure mental health unit if the prescribed person is of the opinion that the defendant should be taken to a secure mental health unit for treatment or for the protection of the defendant or any other person. > > (4) If after apprehending a defendant under subsection (2) the prescribed person is of the opinion that the defendant should be taken to a secure mental health unit but it is not possible or practicable to do so immediately, the prescribed person may take the defendant to an approved hospital where he or she is to be admitted and treated as an involuntary patient, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2013, until such time as he or she can be transferred to a secure mental health unit. > > (5) When apprehending a defendant, taking him or her to a secure mental health unit or an approved hospital or transferring him or her to a secure mental health unit under this section, a prescribed person may - > > (a) be assisted by such persons as he or she considers appropriate; and > > (b) use such restraint and force as the prescribed person believes appropriate in the circumstances; and > > (c) enter, without warrant, any premises or part of premises in which the prescribed person reasonably believes the defendant is present. > > (5A) The custody and escort provisions, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2013, apply in respect of the taking of a defendant to an approved hospital or a secure mental health unit under this section. > > (6) A secure mental health unit to which a defendant is taken under subsection (3) is to admit the defendant and may detain the defendant in the unit - > > (a) for a period not exceeding 24 hours; and > > (b) if the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist authorises it, for one further period not exceeding 72 hours; and > > (c) if the Tribunal authorises it, for one or more further periods each of a length to be determined by that Tribunal. > > (7) Despite subsection (6), if - > > (a) within a period referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection an application is made to the Tribunal for an extension of the period for which a defendant may be detained under that subsection; and > > (b) a member of the Tribunal authorises it - > > the defendant may be detained in the secure mental health unit until the application is determined by that Tribunal. > > (8) Despite subsection (6), if within any period for which a defendant may be detained under that subsection an application is made to the Supreme Court under section 30 to vary or revoke the supervision order in respect of the defendant, the defendant may be detained in a secure mental health unit until the Court has determined the application. > > (9) While a defendant is being detained in an approved hospital or secure mental health unit under this section, the supervision order is suspended.

2. The Tribunal's authority to authorise a further period of detention is contained in s 31(6)(c) above. The Tribunal may make an order for any further period of detention. However, the Tribunal must always exercise its powers and discretions subject to the mental health service delivery principles set out at Schedule 1 of the Mental Health Act 2013, which provides amongst others, at 1(b):

(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;

3. In considering an application made under s 31(6)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal also considers whether the requirements of s 31(2) have been met.

Relevant Considerations under section 31(2) of the Act

Section 31(2)(a)(i) - the defendant has contravened, or is likely to contravene, the supervision order

1. Dr TB, at hearing said:
   1. The defendant rejects the notion of being on a supervision order, believing he should not be on the order and subject to the conditions of the order. The defendant has recently indicated he intends to seek to have the drug conditions on the supervision order removed;
   2. It has taken a very long time for the defendant to be able to demonstrate he can work within the conditions of the order. There has been no period in recent times where the defendant has demonstrated he can sustain stability following release back into the community. Even when he is given limited leave to the community "things quickly go pear shaped";
   3. During the period he absconded from the secure mental health unit, he smoked 50 or more cones of cannabis and when he was apprehended, he had possession of his car keys (his bail conditions is that he is not to be in the possession of car keys and his licence has previously been suspended);
   4. There is a real risk that the defendant will likely continue to contravene the supervision order.

Section 31(2)(a)(ii) - there has been, or is likely to be, a serious deterioration in the defendant's mental health.

1. In evidence, Dr TB said in the treating team has made some significant progress in stabilising the defendant's mental state and this was reflected in the transfer of the defendant from High Dependency Unit (HDU) to the Extended Care Unit (ECU) and the process of granting him escorted day leave, then unescorted day leave from the inpatient unit.
2. At this time Dr TB said there were some concerns about the defendant's mental state as he was experiencing delusions which had not fully resolved. Dr TB told the Tribunal that this was not uncommon in the defendant's management as he has an incomplete treatment response.
3. Dr TB gave evidence, that in the week before the absconding event the defendant had become very concerned believing he had trillions of dollars in cryptocurrency and that his mother had stolen large quantities of money from him.
4. Dr TB said that following the defendant's absconsion and drug use in the community there were some concerns about his mental state.

Section 31(2)(b) - that, because of the breach or likely breach of the supervision or the deterioration or likely deterioration in the defendant's mental health, there is a risk that the defendant will harm himself, herself or another person.

1. Dr TB told the Tribunal that the defendant had become quite angry with his mother regarding his belief that she had stolen cryptocurrency from him. He was overheard on the phone to his mother and there were concerns that he may try and confront her whilst he was on leave placing her at risk.
2. It was the intention of the treating team to work through these issues with the defendant so he could understand that his mother had not taken any money from him. But in the interim the treating team had to establish a plan, to either withhold leave or grant leave in shorter blocks so that he did not have the time to travel to his mother's home by public transport within the timeframe of the leave.
3. Dr TB said it was decided to grant the defendant one-hour blocks of leave during the day and this plan worked in with the defendant's preference as it would mean he could have cigarette breaks during this time in the community as he finds smoking an important coping strategy.
4. Shortened leave began the week of 28 July 2025 and continued for the remainder of that week and into the weekend without incidence. The leave continued into the week of Monday 4 August 2025 when the defendant failed to return from leave that day. He did not answer his phone when called by the treating team and he was unable to be located. His mother was contacted. She said she had heard from him but did not know where he was.
5. Dr TB said that the treating team had also been concerned that the defendant may try to access a car during the period of his absconsion. Dr TB said that had been no evidence that he did drive (without a licence) during this period, but he was found with his car keys on his person when he was located by the police.
6. The Tribunal was satisfied from the evidence of the treating team's assessment of the breach of the supervision order and a likely deterioration in the defendant's mental state that there was a risk of harm to the defendant or to someone else if he was not apprehended and detained for ongoing treatment.

1. In the application, as a delegate of the CP, Dr TB sought authorisation to extend the period of apprehension of the defendant and recommended three months of detention. He said that the rationale for the defendant's admission was:

[F]ollowing his absconsion and drug use in the community there is some concerns about his mental state... At some point we are going to have to start the process of transitioning [the defendant] back into the community where he will again have the ability to demonstrate he can comply with the conditions. We have applied for 3 months detention to enable that to occur. History has shown that there is still a significant possibility that we will come back to the Tribunal in 3 months with [the defendant] having stumbled along that journey of trying to graduate into the community... We have tended to progress him at a certain pace then [the defendant] will struggle to maintain adherence with the conditions. > > Fundamentally [the defendant] feels there is a disparity between what the conditions expect of [him] and what [he] believes should be expected of him and what he is willing to do. [The defendant] feels ...the conditions are set to a high bar...and supervising in relation those conditions sets a higher bar... he breaches the order and then lets things go... it becomes increasingly untenable because [the defendant] does relapse into substance use, things start going pear shaped and there is an escalation in his acrimonious engagement.

2. In evidence, Dr TB said the treating team will support the defendant to be able to return to the community and to give him the opportunity to demonstrate he can comply with the conditions of the supervision order and to work with the mental health service towards a time that the defendant will be in the position to come off the order.
3. Dr TB felt the defendant has "a fair way to go" before he can demonstrate compliance with the conditions of the order, and this was the reason why he was applying for a three month extension of detention.

1. The Tribunal asked the defendant how he felt about the report from Dr TB. He said the report was in depth, somewhat exaggerated and was very concerning. He said he also felt concerned for his welfare.
2. The defendant asked the Tribunal if he could share his thoughts on what was happening. Below is a summary of what the defendant told us:
   1. He is currently medicated with zuclopenthixol depot antipsychotic medication to treat his diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder;
   2. He is generally compliant with treatment when in the community. He takes his medication and will continue to work with the treating team to maintain a healthy viable treatment response to maintain his health and remain balanced and well;
   3. Spending four and a half years out of five in detention in recent years has been for a variety of puerile reasons. There is no reason to hospitalise him when he can demonstrate "sanity, personality and appropriate behaviours";
   4. In the last six months he has spent three months in custody for driving offences. He acknowledges that he has done the wrong thing and questions how many times he needs to be reprimanded;
   5. He questioned the purpose of being on a community-based order when he has spent "a lifetime in confinement". The constant detention was having a detrimental effect on him as a vulnerable person. He has reflected on his mistakes and "can only do better moving forward";
   6. He explained that he was worried about the possible termination of his lease over the property where he lives and worries that if he loses the lease, he will have to stay in the secure mental health unit indefinitely. He said these concerns were having a traumatic effect on his mental state;
   7. He said he was "asking for a fair go where common sense prevails". He said he did not need to be in detention and that should be obvious to the Tribunal;
   8. He said he wanted equal opportunity and wanted to be treated in the community. He said he was not a flight risk and had not been driving.
   9. He said that in the last six weeks he had turned a corner and in particular in the last two weeks he has positively reflected on his position. He said he would eventually get home and "why not strike whilst the iron is hot and let me hit the ground running and send me home" and that he was prepared to remain drug free.

1. As provided for in s 31(6)(c) of the Act (outlined above), the Tribunal can authorise a period of further detention (to that authorised by the CP under s 31(6)(b)) of a length to be determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal can, therefore, exercise a discretion as to the length of the further period of detention.
2. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal is required to consider the objects of the Mental Health Act 2013 at s 12 and the mental health service delivery principles at Schedule 1 of that Act.
3. Despite the defendant's views that his treatment and supervision can be adequately managed in the community, the Tribunal accepted the professional opinion of Dr TB that the treating team needed to have up to three months to work with the defendant to stabilise his mental state and to then work with the defendant on a transition back into the community. We are satisfied that the defendant requires ongoing admission to [the secure mental health unit] for forensic management and treatment which cannot currently be provided in less restrictive settings.
4. The Tribunal accepted that three months would be a reasonable period to allow Dr TB and treating team to work with the defendant and support his return to living in the community.

1. The Tribunal, after considering the application, other relevant documentation, evidence and submissions, authorises the detention of the defendant at [the secure mental health unit] for a period up to an including 13 November 2025.