Review of supervision order - Nature of disability - No indication of endangering another person - Adequate community resources for treatment and support - Compliance with order - Supervision order no longer warranted - Issue of a certificate to apply to the Supreme Court of Tasmania to have the supervision order revoked.

Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (Tas); ss 3, 34, 35, 37;

Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas); s 179;

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication

1. On 10 December 2012, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania Crawford CJ made a supervision order for LDBK under the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act). LDBK had been charged with two counts of arson contrary to s 268 of the Criminal Code Act 1924, she was found unfit to stand trial and a jury concluded at a special hearing that findings could not be made and that LDBK was not guilty of those crimes.
2. In His comments on passing sentence, His Honour, stated the following:

[LDBK] suffers from a mild to moderate intellectual disability, a borderline personality disorder, social anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The cause of her fire lighting cannot be determined definitely but appears to be associated with periods of dissatisfaction with her accommodation and underlying unhappiness and frustration. She presents as a moderate risk of acting similarly in the future. > > None of the authors of the reports recommend that she should be made the subject of a restriction order which would require her to be detained in the Wilfred Lopes Centre. Both psychiatrists recommend that a supervision order would best facilitate her treatment and rehabilitation and would best balance her autonomy and the safety of the community. I am aware that a supervision order must be reviewed at least once in each period of 12 months by the Forensic Tribunal. The view has been expressed that annual reviews risk putting pressure on [LDBK] with unwanted consequences. I have considered that but am persuaded that I should accept the recommendations of the two psychiatrists[1].

3. LDBK's release on the Supervision Order was conditional on her complying with the reasonable directions of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist, or his or her nominee and upon the following additional conditions:

(a) she must reside only at accommodation approved by Forensic Health Services, or another service provider;

(b) she is to attend medical, psychological and psychiatric appointments as requested by Forensic Health Services, or another service provider;

(c) she must abstain from using illicit substances;

(d) she must drink alcohol only at quantities determined by Forensic Health Services;

(e) she must not smoke at her place of accommodation and must comply with the house rules at her place of residence or supervised accommodation;

(f) she is to undergo alcohol and illicit drug screening as requested by Forensic Health Services;

(g) she is to attend a cognitively appropriate level Tasmanian Fire Service education program as selected by Forensic Health Services to aid understanding of the risks of fire;

(h) she is to take medication, if required, as directed by a medical practitioner from Forensic Health Services; and

(i) officers of Forensic Health Services are authorised to exchange information about her with other service providers.

1. On 27 November 2013, the Tasmanian Forensic Tribunal (as it then was) reviewed the supervision order pursuant to s 37 of the Act and determined that the supervision order was still warranted and the conditions of the order remained appropriate.
2. The Mental Health Tribunal (as it then was) reviewed the supervision order on 26 November 2014 and each year thereafter up to 2020. On each of these occasions, the Mental Health Tribunal determined that the supervision order was still warranted, and the conditions of the Order remained appropriate.
3. On 30 November 2021, the Mental Health Stream of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) reviewed the supervision order and determined that the supervision order was no longer warranted, and LDBK should be released unconditionally with a certificate to issue.
4. On 23 November 2022, following review the Tribunal determined that the supervision order was warranted and the conditions were appropriate.
5. On 13 November 2023 and 11 November 2024, the Tribunal reviewed the supervision order and determined that the supervision order was no longer warranted and LDBK should be released unconditionally with a certificate to issue.
6. On 19 November 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 WK, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist from Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS), and UX, CFMHS case manager attending in person, and LDBK, and LT registered nurse at Adult Community Mental Health Service and Phillippa Jones, direct legal representative, all attending via video link.

1. Section 179(2)(c) of the Mental Health Act 2013 states that the Tribunal is required to review supervision orders made under the Act as provided by s 37 of the Act.
2. As per the interpretation s 3 of the Act, a forensic order means a restriction order or supervision order.
3. 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. The Tribunal had before it a supervision order report by Dr WK, dated 19 November 2025.
2. In her report Dr WK outlined the following:

I have been [LDBK's] treating psychiatrist since joining the Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS) on 15 August 2022. In the past 12 months I have reviewed her three times, most recently on 2 October 2025, with her interim case manager [UX]. [LDBK's] management is discussed as needed weekly with the CFMHS multi-disciplinary team (MDT). > > Since her relocation to supported accommodation in [place name], [LDBK's] care has been shared between CFMHS and Burnie Adult Continuing Care Team (CTT). Additionally, [LDBK] continues to be supported by [UF] clinical psychologist), Burnie General Practice, Public Trustee, her NDIS Support Co-ordinator, and support organisation (accommodation provider). > > Following protracted efforts to get suitable secure accommodation for [LDBK] for several years, we are pleased to report that [LDBK] was accepted for [accommodation provider] and moved there on 16 December 2024. The accommodation has proved highly suited to her needs, and she has had an excellent year. > > ...In summary [LDBK] is well engaged with services and has adhered to all recommendations. > > [her some more mental capacity to direct to self regulation and adaptive coping.

3. At hearing Dr WK stated LDBK is now living in her own unit in a complex where there are other units and where support is available 24/7. Dr WK indicated LDBK's accommodation is in a setting that is conducive to promote her mental health, as it provides her with security, that is safety and access to care providers. Dr WK stated despite a few ups and downs, LDBK has coped well through this period of change.

1. Dr WK stated that the changes have been stressful for LDBK at times, but LDBK has maintained a strong alliance with the treating team, has fostered good relationships with new carers and where she hasn't had good relationships with new carers, she's been able to communicate the difficulties and resolve issues.

1. Dr WK confirmed that LDBK has functioned well throughout the year and the CFMHS were very pleased with the progress she had made. Dr WK confirmed LDBK was always going to require some degree of support but was also enjoying some autonomy and independence in choosing how she wants to spend her days.

The nature of the defendant's mental impairment or other condition or disability

1. At hearing Dr WL stated LDBK has complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on a background of mild - moderate intellectual disability. Dr WL commented that the coping mechanisms that LDBK has used have at times resembled a sort of borderline pattern but noted that this is firmly rooted in complex trauma rather than being a borderline personality disorder.

1. Dr WL indicated that LDBK's PTSD results in a tendency towards being affective dysfunctional and being more reactive and impulsive but noted LDBK had done considerable work around the use of alternative strategies for managing her distress, with her psychologist. to really become practised and adept at using alternative strategies to manage her affect.

1. We accept the expert medical opinion of Dr WK that LDBK has an intellectual disability and is diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and exhibits features of that disorder.

Whether the defendant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger another person or other persons generally

1. Dr WK stated that LDBK hasn't engaged in any risk activities throughout the last 12 months, including alcohol use, drug use, and difficulties with respect to her interpersonal relationships. Dr WK acknowledged that LDBK is still vulnerable, particularly to exploitation by others.

1. Dr WK confirmed there had been no significant issues of concern:

...certainly none of the offence specific behaviour has been any concern, including both activities, threats, ideation, all of the above. We've had no concerns, nor have we for many years...

I feel very confident that we're now at the point in her recovery where [LDBK] has not engaged in fire setting or even threats or expressed thoughts of fire setting for at least 12 years. ... all of the things that were associated with her offending, she has abstained from including using alcohol because of course that was the other part of her presentation, the alcohol had become a feature of her coping strategies that was disinhibiting and further added to the risk. And she has been abstinent from alcohol for a very long time and speaks with a very sophisticated understanding of how alcohol puts her at risk and her commitment to abstinence. The static risk factors, they're always going to be there, but the dynamic ones I think have been markedly reduced.

1. Based on all the evidence before us we are satisfied that LDBK's clinical and psychosocial progress over the past 12 months has significantly reduced her risk of taking action that would be likely to endanger another person or persons generally. We accept the evidence of Dr WK and find that if released from the order, LDBK is not likely to endanger another person or persons generally.

Whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the defendant in the community.

1. At hearing Dr WK noted there are demonstrably adequate resources to treat and support LDBK in the community without the supervision order. Dr WK gave extensive details of the multidisciplinary service supports providing support to LDBK, including a transition to community mental health services at [city], her NDIS supports and psychologist.

...it would be my recommendation were she to have a time where she's needing additional mental health support, that that be conducted in a civil setting...

And we're keen to continue to support LDBK. So you know whether the supervision order is revoked or not to be revoked or not (sic), the CFMH team is not going anywhere quickly. We'll continue to manage a transition over as many months or years as it takes for [LDBK] to be ready.

1. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Dr WK that LDBK will continue to be supported by the FCMHS whether she is under the authority of a supervision order or not and will transition to the care and support of the ACMHS.
2. We are satisfied on the evidence that the mental health resources available to LDBK for her treatment and support in the community, are adequate. Further we note, LDBK has support from her psychologist, general practitioner, NDIS support team and co-ordiantor of supports; and the Public Trustee who administer who finances.

Whether the defendant is likely to comply with the conditions of a supervision order

1. Dr WK gave evidence that LDBK has fully complied with the supervision order and has engaged well with the CFMHS and ACMHS, attending all appointments when requested and initiating regular telephone contact with UX.
2. We accept the evidence of the treating team and are satisfied that LDBK 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 LDBK is likely to continue to comply with the conditions of the supervision order.

Other matters that the court [Tribunal] thinks relevant

1. In considering the principle in s 34 of the Act, that the Tribunal is to apply the principle that the restrictions on LDBK's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community, we placed weight on the recommendation of Dr WK that the supervision order should be revoked. This recommendation was fully supported by UX.
2. Ms Jones, legal representative for LDBK submitted that the criteria has been made out and the Tribunal could be satisfied that issuing another certificate is appropriate. Ms Jones confirmed that LDBK has confirmed she would like to come off the supervision order and is 'incredibly proud of the progress she's making.'
3. Ms Jones confirmed there is currently an application before the Supreme Court and a further report from the Chief Psychiatrist is required to enable that application to proceed.

1. After having regard to the matters set out in s 35(1) of the Act, the principle set out in s 34 of the Act and all the evidence before us, together with the full support of the treating team and Ms Jones, the Tribunal is satisfied the supervision order is no longer warranted and recommends the supervision order be revoked. The Tribunal issues a certificate to enable LDBK to apply to the Supreme Court to request a revocation of her supervision order.

[1] Tasmania v [LDBK], Crawford CJ, 10 December 2012, Comments on Passing Sentence_._