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

Mental Health Act 2013;

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

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. HKX is a 51-year-old man who resides in [a Tasmanian town] where he lives with his mother.
2. In August 2004, when aged 30, HKX was charged with attempted arson after throwing a Molotov cocktail through the front bedroom window of a neighbour's house due to perceived persecution and harassment by that neighbour. Fortunately, it failed to ignite. On 5 September 2006, a jury of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (the Supreme Court) was unable to find HKX not guilty of the offence and the Supreme Court made a supervision order (supervision order) pursuant to the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act).
3. As required by s 37 of the Act, since the imposition of the supervision order, it has been reviewed at 12-month intervals by the Mental Health Tribunal. On each review the order was found to be required and the conditions appropriate, up until the review conducted in 2018.
4. On 14 November 2018, the Mental Health Tribunal determined that, HKX presented a low risk to the safety of the community, and the order was no longer warranted. Consequently, a certificate issued allowing HKX to apply to the Supreme Court. At each subsequent yearly review the Mental Health Tribunal up until 2021 and the Mental Health Stream of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) from 2022 onwards has reached the same conclusion, stating the order was no longer warranted. The tribunals have issued certificates to allow HKX to apply to the Supreme Court to have the order revoked. To date, HKX has not made the application to the Supreme Court.
5. On 13 October 2025, a further review of the supervision order was conducted by the Tribunal and after hearing evidence, we determined to issue a certificate.

1. The hearing was conducted at the Tribunal rooms at 38 Barrack Street Hobart with Dr TB, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist from Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS), DN, case manager, HKX, and his mother, TH, all attending via video link.

1. The Tribunal's power to review a supervision order is in s 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 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 NSX lodged a report with the Tribunal dated 16 September 2025 but at the time of hearing had left the forensic mental health services in Tasmania. DN also lodged a report dated 7 October 2025.
2. At hearing we heard evidence that Dr NSX had reviewed HKX on 3 occasions in the last 12 months. Dr TB spoke to Dr NSX's report. DN also gave evidence.

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

1. At hearing, Dr TB referred to Dr NSX's report, stating HKX has an established diagnosis of mild intellectual disability and a history of paranoid thinking, which have historically incorporated neighbours and sometimes health authorities. Dr TB noted that over the years there has been consideration whether this paranoid thinking is underpinned by an enduring psychotic disorder or by paranoid personality vulnerabilities. Dr TB referred to Dr NSX's report which indicates that HKX's primary diagnosis is intellectual disability with paranoid personality vulnerabilities.

[HKX's] upbringing exposed him to interpersonal conflict and anti-authoritarian attitudes from an early age and has contributed to problematic attitudes and behaviours, and engendered suspiciousness and mistrust of the intention of others. These personality traits appear to be ingrained, enduring, and maladaptive, and likely indicate a longstanding paranoid personality disposition ... > > Of note, there has been a softening of these personality traits in recent years. > > ... > > Since at least the time of the index offense, [HKX] has expressed persecutory ideas of a nature, intensity and persistence that would, for the most part, be consistent with a diagnosis of delusional disorder. As indicated, these have abated in recent years and such beliefs are now considered consistent with his personality style and intellectual disability and exacerbated when faced with threat, stress and uncertainty.

Interactions with [HKX] in the past year had seen the periodic presence of delusional and paranoid content in some conversations. This was mild in nature and [HKX] continued to be easily distracted and/or redirected to other topics.

3. We accept the expert medical evidence that HKX has mild intellectual disability with paranoid personality traits.

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

[HKX] has a long and well documented history of recurrent interpersonal conflict and offending conduct related to this. The index offence of attempted arson in 2004 occurred in the setting of conflict with neighbours. > > It is notable that various residential placements have failed because of such conflict. Encouragingly, [HKX] and his mother have now resided in [town] for 10 years. There has been minimal conflict with neighbours in recent years, and [HKX[ has seemed increasingly comfortable as time has progressed. > > The evidence before the Tribunal is that HKX's attitudes and demeanour in the last few years has significantly improved, and there has been an absence of serious offending conduct for a number of years, despite a significant reduction in contact with the CFMHS.

2. Dr NSX's report indicates that a key aspect of risk management related to the supervision order has been to maintain a degree of therapeutic engagement, which over the years has greatly improved.

The supervision order has allowed monitoring of behaviour, mental state, risk, living situation and interventions such as reality testing and reassurance.

3. While the evidence of Dr NSX is that there "...is a possibility that there would be a marginally increased risk of interpersonal conflict, there is little to indicate, if [HKX] was released from the order, a significant likelihood that he would endanger another person or other persons generally."
4. At hearing, Dr TB note the order now has been in place for approximately 19 years. Dr TB stated that since HKX's relocation to [town] there has been a reduction in the intensity of the paranoid thoughts, resulting in less conflict with neighbours.
5. In her report DN stated:

In October 2024, [HKX] was formally reassessed utilising HCR-20v3 (Historical, Clinical and Risk Assessment - Version 3) and the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) - a clinical practice guide for the dynamic assessment of risks and treatability including risk of violence to others; risk of self-harm; risk of suicide; risk of breaching Court Orders; risk of substance abuse; risk of self-neglect; and risk of being victimised.)" > > A recent review indicated there had been no change to [HKX's] risk profile.

6. At hearing DN gave evidence that there have been no issues, no involvement of police, no reports from housing services in regard to any problems with neighbours and indicated there was 'nothing too much to be concerned about.'
7. DN confirmed the previous risk profile for HKX was considered 'low moderate' but indicated 'it's probably low these days' as HKX and his mother have settled well into the local community.
8. We accept the evidence of the treating team and find that if released from the order, HKX is not likely to endanger another person or persons generally.

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

1. Dr NSK's report indicates that TH is an important support in HKX's life and has been a stabilising influence. we were told HKX sees his general practitioner regularly, whom he has a good and trusting relationship with.
2. Dr NSK opined in the context of the order being revoked that:

I now think [HKX] and his mother will most likely continue to avail themselves of the support of the CFMHS if problems arise.

3. Implicit in this comment, is that CFMHS are willing and able to treat and support HKX, whether he is on or off the order. Further Dr TB commented that the resourcing requirements are minimal.
4. We accept the evidence of the treating team, that if the order were to continue there are adequate resources in the community to support HKX and that the CFMHS would remain available to support him even if the supervision order is revoked. Currently the CFMHS provide HKX regular assessment of mental state and risk as well as fostering connection and more general support.
5. Based on the evidence before us, we are satisfied there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of HKX, in the community.

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

1. DN gave evidence that HKX has complied with the supervision order and continues to engage with the CFMHS, attending appointments when requested. HKX's contact with the MHS remains minimal, however at hearing DN commented:

I think the most encouraging aspect of the last year is that when [HKX] and [TH] do need some assistance, they will pop into the office and even if I'm not here they do engage really well with our person at the front desk

2. Dr TB stated he had not been notified of any breaches of the conditions of the supervision order.
3. We accept the evidence of the treating team and are satisfied that HKX has complied with the order and continues to engage as required and has complied with all expectations of the CFMHS. On that basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that HKX is likely to continue to comply with the conditions of the supervision order.

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

1. HKX is in ongoing, stable rented accommodation. Currently, he is not accepting of any other service involvement, except CFMHS. HKX and his mother keep to themselves but do go out together in the local community. HKX has some physical health issues for which he is seeing his general practitioner. HKX's lifestyle seems quite settled.
2. The report from Dr NSK indicates it is difficult to identify any substantial benefits in continuing the supervision order.

With eventual revocation in mind, the CFMHS gradually reduced its level of contact and I have only seen him usually annually since 2018. He currently sees his case manager, [DN] several times per year. He clearly appreciates her support and counsel."

3. We were advised the CFMHS continues to support a certificate being granted to HKX so he can make an application to the Supreme Court to have the order revoked, but that HKX currently appears ambivalent toward having the order revoked and may well be anxious about going to the Supreme Court. Prior to the review in October 2023 the Tribunal appointed a separate representative for HKX to assist him with the review and the steps involved if an application were to be made. However, no application has been made to revoke the order. We note that HKX at this point, is the one who needs to make the application and CFMHS will continue to support him with his decision.

1. We are satisfied on the written and oral evidence presented that the supervision order is no longer warranted, and a certificate should be issued in respect of the revocation of the order and that HKX be released unconditionally.