Hearing Location: Hobart (and via audio-visual link)

Orders Made: The Tribunal determines the Supervision Order should be revoked and recommends a Restriction Order should be made.

The Tribunal recommends to the Secretary of the responsible Department in relation to the Mental Health Act 2013 that they make an application under s 30 (1) for the revocation of the supervision order and the making of a restriction order.

Catchwords: Supervision order - Nature of mental impairment - Endanger another person - Adequate community resources for treatment and support - Revocation of Supervision Order and recommends a Restriction Order be made.

Legislation Cited: Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (Tas); ss 3, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37;

Mental Health Act 2013 (Tas); s 179;

Justices Act 1959 (Tas); s 106;

Cases Cited State of Tasmania v [OCW] 28 October 2016

OCW (Review of Supervision Order) [2024] TASCAT 93

Publication Restriction: The names in these proceedings have been altered to protect the identities of the parties.

1. On 2 July 2025, the Tribunal reviewed the supervision order of OCW and determined that the supervision order should be revoked and recommends a restriction order should be made in respect of OCW.
2. The Tribunal recommended to the Secretary of the responsible department in relation to the Mental Health Act 2013 that they make an application under s 30(1) of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act) for the revocation of the supervision order and the making of a restriction order.

The reasons for the determination are outlined below and incorporates the history of the making of the supervision order and breaches of the conditions of the order as outlined in OCW (Review of Supervision Order) [2024] TASCAT 93.

1. On 28 August 2016, the Supreme Court of Tasmania made a supervision order for OCW under the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act). OCW had been charged with stalking contrary to the Criminal Code 1924, s 192 and five counts of breaching a restraint order contrary to the Justices Act 1959, s106I(1).
2. In State of Tasmania v [OCW] 28 October 2016 in making comments on the making of the supervision order Pearce J stated the following:

The defendant is aged 40. He has chronic serious psychotic mental illness. He has paranoid schizophrenia and likely co-morbid autism spectrum disorder. He has required, to use Dr [P'E's] words, assertive mental health treatment, commonly involuntary admissions to hospital, since he was a young adult. He required medication. Before going into custody he was treated by the Community Forensic Mental Health Service. When non-compliant the defendant is actively psychotic and experiences a broad range of paranoid and obsessional delusions and hallucinations. On occasions he has displayed aggressive behaviour which is unmanageable even in psychiatric wards. He attended school with the complainant in 1988 in northern Queensland although they have never been friends or in a relationship. However, from at least 1998 the defendant has developed an obsessive and delusional fixation with her. He told the authors of the reports that he stayed with her family at the time and fell in love with her. Since then he hears her voice in his head on a daily basis and fears that she has rejected his love for her. Over the subsequent 17 years he has repeatedly contacted her. She lives in Queensland where he also lived until he came to Tasmania in 2009. In the past he has turned up at her house although he disputes that. He has sent her hundreds of letters and emails. The communications not only contain expressions of his love and his desire for her to reciprocate his feelings but also threats of rape and murder and threats to kill himself. All this has been reported to the police. He has been asked many times to desist, without success. As far as I have been made aware, no proceedings were brought against him until 2014. On 19 December 2014, he pleaded guilty to stalking and seven counts of breach of bail. He was sentenced to imprisonment for five months, wholly suspended for three years. He quickly breached that sentence and on 25 May 2015 pleaded guilty to stalking the complainant again between February and March 2015. The suspended sentence was activated. He was sentenced to a further ten months imprisonment but that sentence was wholly suspended for three years. On 25 May 2015, a restraint order was made prohibiting any form of contact with the complainant. Regrettably neither the suspended sentence nor the restraint order had the desired effect. The conduct which led to the charges heard by the magistrate then took place. In January 2016, he sent the complainant a package. From fear she did not open it but it was later found by the police to contain cosmetics. Every day between 11 and 19 January 2016 the defendant sent emails to the complainant, 27 in total. Some were very lengthy. The substance of the emails were requests that the complainant contact him, asking her not to send him to prison, threats of suicide and threats of murder. The emails demonstrate a continuation of the defendant's delusion and obsessional conduct. The conduct constituted stalking and repeated breaches of the restraint order. He was arrested on 28 January 2016 and has been in custody since then. Because he was found not guilty, there is no breach of the suspended sentence.

The complainant's police and victim impact statements show the complainant continues to be terrified of the defendant. Her statements are corroborated by her sister, who confirms also the broader impact of the defendant's actions. The complainant has, for 17 years, lived in virtually constant fear of him. She has been vigilant to protect herself and has tried to hide, but without success. She believes, not without some justification, that nothing will stop him. I am well aware of the careful and considered statement made by the defendant's mother. She points to the need for therapy and medication and the desirability of family support if he were permitted to live with her. She believes that for him to be left in Tasmania with no family support is a recipe for failure. As understandable as her view may be, I think it is outweighed by the gravity of the risk that the defendant poses to the physical security and mental health of the complainant.

1. OCW's was released under the supervision of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist on condition that he:

(a) is required to take medication and submit to the administration of medical treatment as determined by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist;

(b) is required to comply with any direction as to supervision given by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist;

(c) must not approach, contact or communicate with the complainant, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever;

(d) attend at the offices of the Community Forensic Health Unit by the close of business on Monday, 31 October 2016.

The history of Tribunal reviews of the supervision order inclusive of breaches of the order and detention in the secure mental health unit

1. On 12 January 2017, an Apprehension of Defendant under Supervision Order notification under s 31 of the Act was lodged with the then Mental Health Tribunal (the MHT), notifying of OCW's admission and detention in the secure mental health unit following OCW testing positive to cannabis use with an increased risk of deterioration in mental state. The admission was reviewed by the Tribunal on 18 January 2017 and OCW's detention was extended until 26 January 2017. OCW was discharged from the secure mental health unit on 26 January 2017.
2. On 15 March 2017, an Apprehension of Defendant under Supervision Order notification under s 31 of the Act was lodged with the MHT. Part A of the notification asserted that the defendant had contravened the supervision order as he had "sent more than 20 abusive emails to the victim" between 12 and 14 March 2017 and that this "current behaviour is likely causing harm to the victim". The admitting consultant psychiatrist Dr IC opined that OCW "is more actively psychotic than has been the case recently" and that "there is a risk that the victim will be further psychologically harmed". Dr IC also noted that OCW "was seeking permission to visit Queensland where the victim lives".
3. The admission was reviewed by the MHT on 16 March 2017 and OCW's detention was extended until 18 April 2017. On the 6 April 2017, Dr IC lodged an application for a further period of apprehension of OCW at the secure mental health unit for a further period of 4 months. On 12 April 2017, the Tribunal considered the application and authorised an extension of detention of OCW for a period up to and including 18 August 2017.
4. On 28 July 2017 the secure mental health unit sent a copy of a warrant of remand for OCW to the MHT. The warrant outlined an offence of one (1) count of stalking and 64 counts of breach of restraint order. Following the hearing of this matter OCW was remanded in prison until the matter could be heard in the Magistrates Court on 4 September 2017.
5. On 25 October 2017, the MHT 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.
6. OCW's court matters again returned to the Magistrates Court and OCW was sentenced to prison. He was released from prison on 13 June 2018.
7. The MHT then reviewed the supervision order on the 24 October 2018 and determined that the supervision order was still warranted and the conditions of the order remained appropriate.
8. On 8 July 2019, an Apprehension of Defendant under Supervision Order notification under s 31 of the Act was lodged with the MHT outlining that OCW had breached the supervision order in that he had been sending emails to the victim and to the victim's sister advising "he is not going to stop writing unless he's locked up". It was reported that he had sent over 180 emails over a period of a couple of weeks. The case manager for OCW opined that the victim "is distressed, retraumatised' by the emails and says the victim "is scared for her life". Dr BD, the treating consultant opined:

[OCW] has chronic psychotic symptoms but ongoing preoccupation with the victim, and risk to breach restraining order and forensic order if released from WLC.

1. On 23 July 2019, the MHT considered the apprehension and detention of OCW and authorised the detention in the secure mental health unit for a period up to and including 7 August 2019.
2. On 1 August 2019, the MHT was notified by the secure mental health unit that OCW had been discharged from the facility that day and upon discharge had been arrested by police.
3. On 24 March 2021, at hearing the MHT reviewed the supervision order and determined the order is still warranted and the conditions are appropriate.
4. On 25 August 2021, an Apprehension of Defendant under Supervision Order notification under s 31 of the Act was lodged with the MHT outlining that OCW had breached the supervision order in that he had been sending emails to the victim. Dr TQ, consultant psychiatrist opined that OCW had breached the supervision order by being non-compliant with his antipsychotic treatment and by sending 'disturbing emails with bizarre content" to the victim. At a hearing on 31 August 2021, the MHT authorised OCW's detention at the secure mental health unit for a period up to and including 26 October 2021. On the 19 October 2021, Dr BD lodged an application for a further period of detention of OCW for a period of 3 months. The application went to hearing on 22 October 2021 and the now Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) authorised the extension of detention of OCW at the secure mental health unit for a period up to and including 25 January 2022. The Tribunal was notified by the secure mental health unit that OCW was discharged from the facility on 25 January 2022.
5. On 22 March 2022, at hearing the Tribunal reviewed the supervision order and determined the order is still warranted and the conditions are appropriate.
6. On 8 March 2023, at hearing the Tribunal reviewed the supervision order and determined the order is still warranted and the conditions are appropriate.
7. On 11 January 2024, an Apprehension of Defendant under Supervision Order notification under s 31 of Act was lodged with the Tribunal. Part A: Initial Apprehension of Defendant provided the reasons for the apprehension and detention of OCW:

[OCW] was arrested on Monday 8 January after police compliance check found the [OCW] had sent 50+ emails to victim since July 2023. Since Christmas 2023 [OCW] engaged a private detective in an attempt to obtain brothers [sic] home address in order to gain third party attempts to contact victim. > > Escalated risk of stalking behaviour making it difficult to manage in the community. Ongoing residual symptoms. Nil insight that contacting victim via email was a breach of supervision order or breach of community protection order.

8. Dr ME the treating consultant psychiatrist in Part B of the notification opined OCW had breached his supervision order secondary to recent stalking behaviour which had resulted in his arrest by police. Dr ME stated OCW:

Does not believe schizophrenia accounts for his symptoms. Does not recognise delusions as symptoms. Does not believe he needs clozapine. Has been untruthful with community team re contact with victim. Requires period of assessment and stabilisation.

9. The notification of apprehension of OCW went to hearing on 12 January 2024 and the Tribunal authorised the detention of OCW at the secure mental health unit for a period up to and including 11 April 2024.

1. On 26 February 2024, at hearing the Tribunal reviewed the supervision order and determined the supervision order should be revoked and recommended a restriction order should be made. The Tribunal also recommended to the Secretary of the responsible department in relation to the Mental Health Act 2013 that they make an application under s 30(1) of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 for the revocation of the supervision order and the making of a restriction order.

1. On 17 February 2025, a hearing was scheduled for the review of the supervision order. The Tribunal adjourned the review hearing to seek further medical opinion as to whether the restriction order (as recommended by the Tribunal on 26 February 2024) should be made and the supervision order revoked. The matter was relisted to be heard on 2 July 2025.

1. On 2 July 2025, the review of supervision order hearing was conducted at the Tribunal's premises in Hobart and via audio-visual Teams link to the secure mental health unit, to Dr WK and Ms Olsson at Tasmania Legal Aid.
2. The following people attended the hearing:

(a) OCW (the defendant);

(b) Dr TT (the treating forensic consultant psychiatrist on behalf of the Tasmanian Health Service);

(c) Dr WK (the treating community forensic consultant psychiatrist on behalf of the Tasmanian Health Service);

(d) Dr ST (the treating psychiatric registrar on behalf of the Tasmanian Health Service);

(e) Ms Rylee Olsson, Tasmania Legal Aid representing OCW.

1. The Tribunal had before it the supervision order, Pearce J's comments on making orders and a psychiatric assessment report prepared for the Magistrates Court of Tasmania in 2016. The Tribunal also had before it previous supervision order reports, determinations, statements of reasons and associated documents from reviews of the supervision order to date.
2. The Tribunal also had before it two review reports prepared for this hearing dated 14 May 2025 authored by Dr TT and 27 May 2025 authored by Dr WK.
3. Ms Olsson filed written submissions with the Tribunal on 30 June 2025.

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. Section 37 of the Act provides:

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 reviewing a forensic order pursuant to s 37 the Tribunal is to apply the principle set out in s 34 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.

1. Further, s 37 also provides that in reviewing a forensic order the Tribunal is to have regard to the matters set out in s 35(1):

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. At hearing the Tribunal heard oral evidence from Dr TT and Dr WK. Below is summary of Dr TT's evidence:

1. [OCW] was admitted to [secure mental health unit] on 24 January 2024. He was residing in the community under a supervision order and an indefinite restraining order and is also on the sex offender register. 2. [OCW] was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2005 and is diagnosed with a serious mental illness, namely schizoaffective disorder that is partly in remission. [OCW] continues to hear voices of his victim although there are no active signs that he is responding to the voices. [OCW] accepts that he hears the victim's voice on a regular basis. 3. [OCW] started stalking and exhibiting intimidating behaviour in 1999. [OCW's] victim was a childhood associate and family acquaintance with no romantic involvement. The onset of psychotic symptoms reportedly followed a rejection by the victim in February 1999. [OCW] constantly heard her voice and held delusional beliefs that they were connected at a spiritual level. 4. Between February 1999 and February 2014, [OCW] sent numerous letters and emails to the victim to which she did not respond. 5. OCW was sentenced to imprisonment in February 2014 and in February 2015 became subject to a restraining order. He also sought "murder for hire" from an inmate in Risdon Prison. He subsequently breached the restraining order with emails, unwanted packages, threats of suicide and threats of murder in February 2016. 6. OCW was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment on 28 October 2016 and was sentenced to a supervision order and has remained on it since. 7. OCW has a prior history of stalking and violence through the sending of emails and letters to the victim and her family members. He has tried to send letters to his mother directing for them to be sent to the victim. He has not attempted to approach the victim directly. OCW is also on the sex offenders register and has breached the restraint order multiple times. OCW blames the victim for him being placed on the sex offences register. 8. OCW minimises the impacts of his offence and exhibits cognitive distortions including excuses and justification for his behaviours, often minimising his conduct and blames the victim for his trouble. He has no awareness or understanding that his stalking behaviour is a problem and appears not to show any intention to change. 9. OCW demonstrates "attitudes and behaviours that indicate lack of empathy and callous disregard for the feelings, rights and welfare of the victim". There are also "signs of underlying irritability and impatience, but no violent or aggressive outbursts, sudden attacks or assaults". 10. Dr TT opined:

My experience with stalkers is that they share common attitudes, states and skill deficits that are fundamental to the development and perpetuation of staking behaviour. These constitute common targets for treatment. Three elements underline the development of a stalking episode. The first is that the instigator has a strong sense of entitlement to the victim, which outweighs all other concerns. This results in behaviour that appears entitled, exploitative, and even deceitful. The sense of entitlement fundamental to stalking behaviour may derive from a wider narcissistic personality, but more often is a circumscribed trait that only becomes problematic in a particular context. He clings to the conviction that he has a right to have his desires fulfilled, and he will act accordingly to ensure that they are. Intrinsic to this sense of entitlement is a belief that the individual is owed fidelity by the target, and that he deserves the target's attention simply because he demands it. > > So his strong sense of entitlement, his indifference to the impacts of his behaviour, and specific skill deficits converge in the context of his relationship with the victim and stalking behaviour arose. The primary target for intervention will depend on these predisposing factors which include antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs, lower self-inflated self-esteem, inadequate problem-solving skills, cognitive rigidity, problematic anger and isolation from pro-social peers.

1. Dr TT said an essential requirement for treatment is that OCW needs to have some desire to change his behaviour. He said the treating team will try and help identify that OCW's behaviour is creating significant problems for him and their aim is to offer his specific psychotherapy targeting the attitudes which are perpetuating the stalking behaviour.
2. [OCW's] thinking is quite grandiose, making grandiose plans which he follows up on. [OCW] is treated with an antipsychotic and mood stabiliser medication and "persistently refuses to accept that the clozapine is required or that a mood stabiliser is required to control the grandiose nature of his thinking". [OCW] has a chronic relapsing condition and should treatment cease it is "likely to have very severe adverse consequences".
3. [OCW] is relatively stable in the [secure mental health unit] and the risk he poses can only be managed by ongoing admission to the unit.

The stalking risk profile indicates that he is at moderate risk of attempting to continue his stalking behaviour. This lack of empathy and other symptoms makes it more than likely that he will reoffend. Past or alternative mental health act [sic] or other institute legislative process approved [sic] inadequate in deterring [OCW] from further stalking behaviour.

4. The supervision order has not been a sufficient deterrent to prevent further offending or breach of conditions. Breaches have "occurred despite clinical contact, apparent compliance with medication, and clinical attendance and regular psychosocial treatment focused on risk reduction."

[OCW] was under regular care of the Community Forensic Mental Health Service with full multidisciplinary team involvement, but that was not sufficient to keep him from offending. > > The community mental health services feel that the community management is not appropriate given the ongoing and unmitigated risk of recidivism inherent in his current presentation and recent history of allegedly offending when at liberty in the community.

• In Dr TT's opinion the supervision order no longer suffices, and a restriction order should be imposed as OCW's offending can only be managed by ongoing admission to the secure mental health unit.

1. Dr TT brought to the attention of the Tribunal the judgment of Pearce J (when making the supervision order) in State of Tasmania v [OCW] 28 October 2016 where his Honour stated:

I am in no doubt that at least a supervision order is required. Such an order will provide for control over the defendant's behaviour and movements. It will continue until revoked. As is pointed out by Dr Ball and Dr O'Donnell, management of the defendant's illness, and any breach or impending breach, may be addressed by his apprehension under s 31 and admission into a secure mental health unit. If the defendant becomes non-compliant or dangerous, then it would also be possible for an application to be made under the Act, s 30, for the supervision order to be revoked, and for its substitution by another order, including a restriction order. I do not think that the authorities should be slow to make such an application.

1. Dr WK was OCW treating psychiatrist between 15 August 2022 and 11 January 2024 and last reviewed him on 10 January 2024 at the Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS). 2. Dr WK gave evidence that OCW is diagnosed with schizophrenia. 3. Dr WK opined:

Throughout my tenure as [OCW]'s treating psychiatrist, he was dismissive of the need for CFMHS intervention and the Supervision Order (SO). When the subject of his restriction was raised during clinical reviews, he would present as reticent and irritable. He expressed passive acceptance of the conditions but showed negligible insight regarding the rationale for the order or its enduring nature, expressing intentions to travel to the UK when the SO is revoked. Even after processes were commenced to arrange his admission to the [secure mental health unit] following breach of the order, he did not appear to comprehend that his reported behaviour (i.e., persistent alleged stalking) would hinder his progress towards being made a voluntary patient. > > Establishing a therapeutic alliance with [OCW] was challenging from the psychiatric perspective and he often responded to enquiries made to assess his clinical and risk status with reticence and resentment, expressed largely though body language (e.g., sighing, eye rolling) and verbal dismissiveness (e.g., "all right then", so....?", "if you say so"). Endeavours to challenge [OCW's] expressions of impaired judgement were consistently met with resistance and he was candid about his lack of insight regarding symptoms of psychotic relapse.

1. Dr WK gave evidence that the CFMHS were informed by police on 8 January 2024 that OCW had been arrested for breach of the conditions of his supervision order (sending emails to the victim since June 2023). These activities had not been disclosed to the treatment team despite the clinicians asking him specifically about his thoughts of contacting the victim.

When [OCW] attended CFMHS for review on 10 January 2024 to discuss the alleged breach of the SO Conditions, he engages in a surly and dismissive manner, acknowledging that he had deceived clinicians, expressing no regret for his behaviour, expressing no understanding or awareness, even when prompted, about the likely or possible detrimental impacts of his behaviour on the victim....and indicating his intentions to continue to endeavour to contact the victim. With respect to the latter, [OCW] said that he needed the victim to tell him "one more time" to stop, but that even if she did, he would not stop trying to contact her and would expect her to be "at [his] funeral". > > Regarding [OCW's] suitability for management as a community patient by CFMHS, the SO was not a sufficient deterrent to prevent [OCW] from engaging in behaviour in breach of his conditions. Prior to the current admission, [OCW] had breached the order on five occasions necessitating admission to the [secure mental health unit]. This occurred despite regular clinical contact, apparent compliance with medication and clinic attendance, and regular engagement psychological treatment with an experienced forensic psychologist focused on risk reduction. His likelihood of engaging in further stalking (harassment type offending) was considered high at the time of his admission and no further interventions to attenuate this risk could be practicably utilised in the community. > > [OCW's] risk of re-offending has not been attenuated and there are no less restrictive options currently available to manage him. > > It was my opinion and that of the CFMHS multidisciplinary team that [OCW] could not be safely managed in the community under the SO and required re-call to the [secure mental health unit] for ongoing care. > > I agree with [Dr TT's] opinion about [OCW's] clinical presentation, prognosis and management recommendations.

1. OCW told the Tribunal:
   1. He has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder not schizophrenia and a symptom of his illness is that he hears voices for which he is medicated "which does the world of good in hushing them and frightening them but if at anytime I want to listen to them I can focus on them ...and hear the odd occasional mumble in the distance". These voices do not tell him what to do but rather tell him what he is doing;
   2. He hears three different voices, the victim and two other people he cannot identify. If he does not have his Zuclopenthixol antipsychotic medication he said "I hear a choir and there are all sorts of people and they tell me what to do";
   3. His current desire is to do learn Arabic as a second language with a view to undertake self-directed learning on Islamic finance and study in Jordan or Egypt. Whilst in the secure mental health unit he has had time to "mull over what happened", he has enjoyed writing and has come up with an idea which may get him a scholarship in Arabic and Islam and when he "gets out of here" he will write a thesis and then "exchange that for a degree".
   4. He is "happy" to be treated in the secure mental health unit and also be treated in the community.
2. OCW's legal representative asked how he felt about the possibility of the supervision order "being upgraded" to a restriction order and what he thought about his behaviour going forward. OCW said it was:

a strong deterrent because if the consequences come through the court there is some rigidity to them rather than being held at some psychiatrists whim. I am getting to the point where, yeah, I hate [the victim], I hate her and I think about what is it in the next life. Am I going to have a next life?

3. Turning now to matters to which the Tribunal is to have regard:

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

1. Both Dr WK and Dr TT confirmed OCW has a diagnosis of with schizophrenia.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that OCW has a mental impairment and is diagnosed with a serious mental illness, namely schizophrenia.

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

1. Dr TT told the Tribunal that whilst OCW has been an inpatient in the secure mental health unit there has been no breaches of the supervision order through attempts to contact the victim. Dr TT said that most of OCW's letter writing had been to his young nephew. Dr TT said these letters are found to be distasteful in that they mention fornication, homosexuality and masturbation. Dr TT said the team were closely monitoring OCW's outgoing mail.
2. We accept the evidence that OCW has been, for many years, preoccupied with contacting the victim and her family and that he has said that he will not stop trying to contact the victim even if she asked him to stop.
3. We placed significant weight on the evidence of both Dr WK and Dr TT that OCW had demonstrated a long history of offending behaviours in breach of his supervision order with Dr TT reporting that OCW's stalking risk profile indicates that he is at moderate risk of attempting to continue his stalking behaviour.
4. Whilst OCW has not had the opportunity or the means to contact the victim solely because of his detention at the secure mental health unit, we are satisfied that should OCW be released, he would likely endanger the victim and the victim's family either directly or indirectly.

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

1. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of both Dr WK and Dr TT. Dr WK opined that "despite regular clinical contact, apparent compliance with medication and clinic attendance, and regular engagement psychological treatment with an experienced forensic psychologist focused on risk reduction" OCW continued to breach the conditions of the supervision order. Dr TT opined OCW "was under regular care of the Community Forensic Mental Health Services with full multidisciplinary team involvement but that was not sufficient to keep him from offending".
2. OCW's legal representative submitted that the test is whether the resources that are available for treatment in the community are there to provide treatment and not whether the treatment is going to prevent someone from reoffending. Ms Olsson said that based on the evidence of what could be provided, that maximum level of support would still be available for OCW in the community similar to what is available in the secure mental health unit, although at a reduced intensity.
3. The Tribunal asked Ms Olsson what she based her submission on and what evidence supported this submission as both Dr TT and Dr WK gave evidence there were not enough resources in the community. Ms Olsson told the Tribunal she had no medical evidence to support any of her submissions and explained that in her opinion there was a distinction between whether there is adequate resources in the community for treatment and "whether these adequate resources have or could prevent someone from reoffending and that it is not at a higher level and that is not what the test is or the Act is saying".
4. The Tribunal was not persuaded by Ms Olsson's submission noting the submission was contrary to the evidence of both Dr TT and Dr WK. The Tribunal placed weight on the evidence of both forensic consultant psychiatrists who told the Tribunal that the resources for the treatment and support of OCW in the community, despite its intensity was not adequate to reduce OCW's cognitive distortions, his rigidity of thought, his insight into his illness and insight into his offending.
5. We find that the oversight of treatment and level of treatment intervention, clinical attendance, psychosocial education and counselling provided to OCW in the secure mental health unit is a far greater level of intensity of treatment and support than what can be provided to OCW in a community setting and placed weight on the professional opinion of both Dr TT and Dr WK that OCW requires this level of intensity of treatment and support. Dr TT opined:

[OCW] was under regular care of the Community Forensic Mental Health Services with full multidisciplinary team involvement, but that was not sufficient to keep him from offending. It was only by chance that the police discovered that he was continuing to stalk his victim. The community mental health services feel that the community management is not appropriate given the ongoing and unmitigated risk of recidivism inherent in his current presentation and recent history of allegedly offending when at liberty in the community. There is utility in change of disposition to a restriction order to mitigate risk of community harm. It remains premature at this stage to consider a transition to a less restrictive management in the community when there is ongoing work to do in addressing these factors impacting on [OCW's] future risk of stalking.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence before us that there are not adequate resources available for the treatment and support of OCW in the community and that despite every effort being made, the treating team in the community had not been able to prevent OCW breaching the conditions of his supervision order.

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

1. OCW has a long history of breaching the conditions of his supervision order placing the victim and her family at significant risk. Dr WK opined:

Throughout my tenure as [OCW's] treating psychiatrist, he was dismissive of the need for CFMHS intervention and the supervision order (SO). When the subject of his restriction was raised during clinical reviews, he would present as reticent and irritable. He expressed passive acceptance of the conditions but showed negligible insight regarding the rationale for the order or its enduring nature, expressing intentions to travel to the UK when the SO is revoked. Even after the processes were commenced to arrange his admission to the [secure mental health unit] following breach of the order, he did not appear to comprehend that his reported behaviour (i.e., persistent alleged stalking) would hinder his progress towards being made a voluntary patient.

The supervision order has not been a sufficient deterrent to prevent further offending or breach of conditions and [OCW] has breached the order on five occasions necessitating this admission. This has occurred despite clinical contact, apparent compliance with medication, and clinical attendance and regular psychosocial treatment focused on risk reduction.

3. In Dr TT's professional opinion, OCW will not comply with the conditions of a supervision order. He opines:

[OCW] continues to engage in harassments. He fails to acknowledge the problems associated with his behaviour. And he's only seeking treatment as he's legally mandated to do so. Right now when he, in his own words, "the gloves are off", so he's stating that he can swear on Allah that he will never contact her again. But we do not believe that will translate into action.

4. Based on the evidence before us, we are of the opinion that OCW is unlikely to comply with the conditions of the supervision order in the future should he be released into the community.

1. Ms Olsson referred to the comments on passing sentence by his Honour Pearce J. She submitted that whilst she was not disputing his Honour's comments, she said that there had been far more serious breaches of the supervision order by OCW in 2017 and 2019 and it could be argued that the process to bring an application to revoke the supervision order and have a restriction order in place for the least amount of offending and least serious behaviour had been slow.
2. Ms Olsson submitted the breaches have become less serious over time and the offending had not escalated and OCW had been dealt within a corrections framework for those breaches rather than a forensic framework and had been found fit to plead to subsequent offences. Ms Olsson submitted that OCW's behaviour had not escalated and that he was not acutely unwell and that an "upgrading of an order" should be reserved for situation where a person's mental illness has deteriorated significantly, or their behaviour has escalated to create an increased risk to others that would be more serious than their original offending that had resulted in the supervision order being made.
3. The Tribunal was not persuaded by Ms Olsson's submission. The Tribunal placed weight on the evidence of Dr TT and Dr WK that despite OCW being afforded extensive multidisciplinary psychiatric treatment he was still offending and breaching the order as recently as late 2023 and early 2024. The Tribunal has viewed OCW breaches of his supervision order, not as isolated incidents, but rather we looked at the totality of his offending over many years including the offending when he was provided with the maximum level of supervision and treatment in the community. Despite treatment and support in the community OCW's risk of re-offending has not attenuated.
4. Dr TT made it very clear that OCW had shown no intention to change his stalking behaviours stating:

[OCW] exhibits cognitive distortions including excuses and justification for his behaviours, often minimising his conduct and blames the victim for his trouble. > > [OCW] has consistently demonstrated attitudes and behaviour that indicate lack of empathy and callous disregard for the feelings, rights and welfare of the victim.

5. Ms Olsson added that the resources at the secure mental health unit were finite and that there was no public interest in detaining a person for longer than is absolutely necessary. Ms Olsson further submitted that OCW can be detained at the secure mental health unit under the supervision order for as long as the Tribunal authorises the detention and there was no additional benefit that is incurred by replacing a supervision order with a restriction order.
6. The Tribunal is not persuaded by Ms Olsson's submission. The Tribunal is satisfied that the resources available at the secure mental health unit to treat and support OCW far outweigh the resources available in the community. In addressing Ms Olsson's comments on the detention of OCW on a supervision order versus a restriction order, it has been demonstrated by OCW through numerous breaches of the supervision order placing others at risk, as outlined above in [7] - [25], that he cannot be managed under the conditions of a supervision order. In comparison a restriction order imposes additional controls with the person being subject to stricter detention and monitoring arrangements ensuring public protection, especially where risk is considered high, as is the case in this matter.
7. Ms Olsson submitted that if the Tribunal was mindful to issue a certificate finding the supervision order was warranted but the conditions were inappropriate it would be appropriate to recommend the community forensic mental health service to have increased supervision and monitoring over OCW's electronic device usage and internet use. The Tribunal queried Ms Olsson on how this form of monitoring or supervision would prevent OCW from accessing devices in public places such as the library or internet cafes for example. Ms Olsson said that OCW was still subject to the community protection offender reporting order and the obligations associated with that order.
8. The Tribunal found this submission inconsistent with the evidence. The evidence before us is that, when living in the community OCW had access to the internet and when asked by the treating team he had failed to disclose his attempts to contact the victim, failed to "disclose his activities and had actively denied behaviours or intentions in contravention of his supervision order conditions". Dr WK reported that [OCW] "had explicitly deceived clinicians about his behaviour".
9. The Tribunal is of the view that there are no supervision order conditions that can be recommended that will prevent OCW from accessing the internet or other communication means to potentially contact the victim and the victim's family.
10. The evidence from Dr WK and Dr TT was unequivocal and carried substantial weight in the Tribunal's reasoning. It is clear from the evidence that the supervision order is not a sufficient deterrent to prevent OCW from engaging in behaviour in breach of the conditions of the order and he poses a substantial risk of re-offending.
11. Further we placed weight on the evidence of Dr TT who states that there is significant risk of harm to the victim should OCW be discharged from the secure mental health unit.
12. Both Dr WK and Dr TT recommended that the supervision order be revoked, and a restriction order be imposed so OCW's offending and the risk this offending poses to the community can be managed by ongoing admission to the secure mental health unit.

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 the evidence before it, The Tribunal determines under s 37(1) of the Act that the supervision order should be revoked and that, instead, a restriction order should be made in respect of OCW.
2. Further, the Tribunal recommends to the Secretary of the responsible Department in relation to the Mental Health Act 2013 that he or she make an application under s 30 (1) for the revocation of the supervision order and the making of the restriction order.