Mental Health Stream - Chronic paranoid schizophrenia - Enduring psychotic illness - Arson - Unlawfully setting fire - Discharge of restriction order - Imposition of supervision order - Review of supervision order

Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999; ss 18, 21, 26, 27, 29A, 34, 35, 37.

Sentencing Act 1997; s 75.

Ms P Jones (Tasmania Legal Aid) as separate representative.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. KC is a 61-year-old man who currently resides in [a Tasmanian city] and is the subject of a supervision order under the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act).
2. KC has a diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed over 20 years ago.
3. On 10 March 2011, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, KC was convicted of:
   1. 2 counts of arson, contrary to s 268 of the Criminal Code Act 1924;
   2. 1 count of unlawfully setting fire to vegetation, contrary to s 268(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1924; and
   3. 1 count of attempted arson, contrary to ss 268 and 299 of the Criminal Code Act 1924.
4. In respect of those crimes the Court ordered KC serve a term of imprisonment of 13 months effective from 10 January 2010. KC was made the subject of a restriction order under s 75 of the Sentencing Act 1997, with a compensation order and victims of crime compensation levy also imposed.
5. The then Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) reviewed the restriction order each year between 2011 and 2018. On each review, the Tribunal determined that the restriction order was still warranted, and the conditions remained appropriate.
6. The MHT undertook further reviews of the restriction order each year between 2019 and 2021. On each of these reviews the Tribunal determined that the restriction order was no longer warranted, that a certificate should be issued in respect of the discharge of the restriction order and that a supervision order be made.
7. On 20 September 2021 in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart, the Honourable Acting Justice Porter discharged the restriction order pursuant to s 26 of the Act and made the following supervision order under s 27 of that Act:

Supervision Order > > That you are to be released under the supervision of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist, subject to the following conditions made under s 29A of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999:

8. That you take medication and submit to the administration of medical treatment as determined by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist.
9. That you comply with directions as to supervision given by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist, in particular as to the following matters:
   1. place of residence;
   2. attendance at appointments and allowing visits of forensic mental staff, doctors, health professionals and workers involved in your care and supervision;
   3. attendance at and participation in programs and activities in relation to your mental health and re-integration into the community;
   4. provision of information to health care professionals and workers involved in your care and supervision;
   5. use of alcohol and other psychoactive substances.
10. Not leave the State of Tasmania without permission of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist.

1. Since the initial imposition of the supervision order, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) reviewed the order on 16 September 2022 and determined the supervision order is still warranted and the conditions are appropriate.

1. The Tribunal again reviewed the supervision order on 13 November 2023 and the 4 November 2024 and found on each review that the supervision order is no longer warranted and recommended the order be revoked and KC be released unconditionally. The Tribunal issued a certificate following both reviews allowing KC to apply to the Supreme Court of Tasmania to have the supervision order revoked.

1. A notice of hearing was issued by the Tribunal on 18 September 2025 to the parties advising that a hearing to review the supervision order would be held on 28 October 2025.
2. The hearing proceeded as listed and was conducted at the Tribunal premises in Hobart. KC, together with his legal representative, Ms Jones of Tasmania Legal Aid, attended the hearing in person along with KC's support worker BN and case manager BC, from Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS). KC's treating consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr DI participated by audio-visual link.
3. The Tribunal also had before it a written report prepared by Dr DI which was filed with the Tribunal on 13 October 2025.

1. The Tribunal's authority to review a supervision order is set out 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 principle in section 34 and to 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 provision 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 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. When deciding whether the supervision order remains warranted, the Tribunal is to apply the principle expressed in s 34 and take account of mandatory considerations outlined in s 35(1) of the Act:

34. Principle on which courts are to act > > A court is to apply, where appropriate, 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 when determining -

(a) which order to make under section 18(2) or 21(1) or this Part; or

(b) whether to discharge or vary such an order; or

(c) the conditions of such an order.

35. Matters to which courts are to have regard

(1) In determining proceedings under this Part, a court must, in addition to applying the principle in section 34, have regard to -

(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 court thinks relevant.

1. In addition to her written report Dr DI provided an overview of her treatment of KC. Dr DI told the Tribunal that KC had been under her care since June 2024 and has had his mental illness treated with the antipsychotic medication Clozapine since 2014. KC is also treated with mood stabiliser medication, Sodium Valproate and is also prescribed a _pro re nata (_PRN) (dose as needed) of antipsychotic medication Olanzapine. Dr DI said that KC is not treated under the Mental Health Act 2013 and receives his treatment on a voluntary basis.
2. Dr DI reported that KC is fairly settled in the community and presents with mainly negative symptoms of schizophrenia in the sense that he speaks minimally, tending to just answer questions. His behaviour is appropriate and there have been no concerns raised by staff.
3. Dr DI said that the only issue of concern for the treating team was that KC had to move accommodation a couple of times in the reporting period which was potentially quite stressful for KC. It was noted that there was a small change in KC's mental state during this period. Also, during this period KC changed from smoking eight cigarettes a day and began vaping which possibly increased his levels of Clozapine. At this time KC presented a little more talkative and more forthcoming than usual and it became evident that KC still experiences formal thought disorder with some religious overvalued ideas and occasional auditory hallucinations present. No inappropriate behaviour or issues regarding risk were noted.
4. Dr DI reports that KC's Clozapine levels are now slightly low, and she discussed with KC the option to increase the Clozapine dose. Dr DI said KC does not want to increase the dose and Dr DI reported that she could see no reason to increase the dose as KC is happy with the current situation and there are no risk issues identified.
5. Now turning to the mandatory criteria provided in s 35(1):

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

1. KC has a diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia which remains treatment resistant. Although KC has responded significantly to Clozapine he continues to have residual positive symptoms of psychosis with underlying religiosity, mild thought disorder and occasional auditory hallucinations. KC also experiences negative symptoms of schizophrenia which impact his planning and self-care skills.
2. Dr DI states the symptoms have not caused KC any distress or led him to act out through aggression or fire setting. Dr DI reports that KC's first response to any distress is to request extra antipsychotic medication. He has not required this extra medication for the past four to five months.
3. BC gave evidence that she meets with KC every fortnight when she drops off his medications to him. BC attends the Clozapine Clinic to collect the medication, attends the pharmacy and collects KC's Webster Pack and then delivers the medications to KC.
4. BC also told the Tribunal that she has set up meetings every six weeks with KC's support workers and this provides the treating team with feedback on how KC is coping each day with his activities of daily living and if there were any notable issues to report.
5. KC told the Tribunal in response to our questions that he was going well, the change in accommodation was undertaken quickly and that he was settled in his new place. KC also indicated he was managing with his medications, and he had no side effects.

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

1. Dr DI said that should the supervision order be discharged, she did not envisage any major change to his current circumstances nor any increase in risk. Should the supervision order not be in place, it was Dr DI's opinion that the Community Forensic Mental Health team would want to continue to manage KC's treatment and care and that any referral to another treating team to manage KC's treatment would occur with significant overlap allowing KC to get to know a new team gradually.
2. Dr DI told the Tribunal that KC's mental health was stable, that he was happy where he was living and that there was no evidence that KC is non-compliant with his medication regime.
3. Dr DI outlined the result of a recent risk assessment (from HCR20) in her report. It was recorded, under the heading Four Factor Fire Scales that:

[KC's] scores on all of the subscales, as well as his total factor score currently fall within the non-problematic range as compared to a sample of male mental health patients. His only score that fell towards the top of the range was poor fire safety.

1. Dr DI opined that KC has not presented with any risk issues, nor presented with any aggression or fire setting behaviour in the community since being discharged from the secure mental health unit.

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

1. Dr DI reports that KC is under the care of the Community Forensic Mental Health Team which allows for close review and monitoring. KC is living in supported accommodation and the treating team are working with the staff of the supported accommodation to teach them how to identify early warning signs should KC's mental health deteriorate.
2. Dr DI said there are adequate resources in the community to provide for the monitoring and reviews of KC as well as providing for supported accommodation where KC lives. Dr DI told the Tribunal that any transition of care to a community mental health service would have to be managed carefully. Dr DI explained that KC is not always able to communicate how he is feeling, therefore it was important that KC establishes relationships with a new team before any move to that team ensuring a safe transition.
3. Dr DI told the Tribunal that KC's current accommodation is now stable and there was no indication he will need to move again. KC has ongoing support through NDIS funding which was recently reviewed and approved for another 12 months.

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

1. Dr DI reported that KC complies with the conditions of the supervision order and the treating team had no concerns. Dr DI told the Tribunal that KC is settled and reliable in relation to the activities he undertakes. KC enjoys a set routine each day in that he goes out for lunch and spends the remainder of the day usually watching YouTube videos.

(e) other matters that the court thinks relevant:

1. Dr DI gave evidence that she and the treating team recommend the revocation of the supervision order and support KC's application to the Supreme Court to have the supervision order revoked.
2. Ms Jones told the Tribunal that if a certificate is issued by the Tribunal an affidavit would be prepared in the next few weeks in preparation for an application to the Supreme Court. Ms Jones confirmed that TLA would be supporting KC in his application and representing him in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

1. In considering the matters to which we are to have regard as set out in s 35 of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence before us that KC's mental illness is stable and that he is managed well in the community and that there are sufficient community resources available for the treatment and support of KC to maintain this stability.
2. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the level of mental health management currently afforded to KC will not change should the supervision order be revoked and that any change of treating team within the community setting will be managed very carefully to afford KC a safe transition of care.
3. The Tribunal is also satisfied that during the reporting period KC has not breached his supervision order.
4. Based on the evidence outlined above, the Tribunal determined that the supervision order is no longer warranted and recommends the Supervision Order be revoked and recommends the defendant be released unconditionally. The Tribunal issued a certificate.