THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BROOKE [No 5] [2026] WASC 127 (10 April 2026)

(a) a custody order; or

(b) a community supervision order.

1. I cannot make an order that Mr Brooke be released unconditionally, because murder is a 'serious offence' under the CLMI Act and Mr Brooke is an adult.[3] In addition, I must make a custody order unless I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any risk that Mr Brooke appears to present to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.[4]
2. I am not satisfied that Mr Brooke can be safely managed under a community supervision order at this time. I am therefore going to make a custody order.
3. Because I am making a custody order, I must also set a limiting term for the order, being the best estimate of the term of imprisonment that the court would have imposed if it were sentencing Mr Brooke for murder and his mental impairment was not taken into account.[5] The best estimate I can make of the term of imprisonment that the court would have imposed if it were sentencing Mr Brooke for murder, based on the assumptions required by the CLMI Act, is a term of life imprisonment. I will therefore set the limiting term for the custody order as the duration of Mr Brooke's life.
4. Those, in summary, are my decisions. My reasons are as follows.

1. In deciding what order I should make in relation to Mr Brooke, s 47(1) of the CLMI Act provides that I must take into account a number of different considerations. The considerations in that subsection that apply to Mr Brooke are:[6]

(a) the protection of the community;

(b) the nature of the offence and the circumstances of its commission;

(c) the person's character, antecedents, age and health;

(d) the nature of the person's mental impairment;

(e) the relationship between the mental impairment and the offending conduct;

(f) the degree of risk that the person appears to present to themself or the safety of the community because of their mental impairment;

(g) the extent to which adequate resources are available for the treatment, care and support of the person in the community.

1. In making a decision under the CLMI Act the paramount consideration is the protection of the community. Section 8 provides:[7]

The paramount consideration of a person when performing a function under this Act (including when constituting or a member of a court or tribunal) is the protection of the community.

1. Under the CLMI Act, I, and any other person performing a function under the Act, must also have regard to a number of principles. Those principles include the following:[8]

(2) A person performing a function under this Act (including when constituting or a member of a court or tribunal) must have regard to the following principles -

(a) that persons with mental impairment should be subject to the least possible restriction on their freedom consistent with the protection of the community;

(c) that persons with mental impairment in the justice system should be provided with the best possible treatment, care and support;

1. The CLMI Act requires me to take all these matters into account in deciding whether to make a custody order or a community supervision order.
2. It is important, however, that I make one matter clear. If I make a custody order, it is not for me to determine the place where Mr Brooke is to be detained. The place of custody must be determined by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal (Tribunal).[9] I must be careful not to trespass on the role of the Tribunal.
3. Nevertheless, in deciding whether to make a custody order or a community supervision order, I must take into account the effect of each alternative order on Mr Brooke and I must consider the extent to which Mr Brooke can be adequately treated either in custody or in the community. Only by considering those matters am I able to have regard to which option will provide Mr Brooke with the 'best possible treatment, care and support' and which option would subject Mr Brooke to the 'least possible restriction' on his freedom 'consistent with the protection of the community'.
4. For this reason, while it is not my responsibility to determine the place where Mr Brooke would be detained under any custody order, I must consider what options are even available to treat, care for and support Mr Brooke under a custody order.
5. In addition, whether I decide to make a custody order or a community supervision order, the court must immediately notify the Tribunal and the Chief Mental Health Advocate and give them a copy of the order and the 'prescribed information'.[10] The prescribed information includes the written reasons for the order.[11] The legislative scheme therefore reveals an intention that the court's reasons for making an order may be relevant to the performance of the Tribunal's functions.

1. To assist me in considering these and any other matters that are relevant, I ordered a number of reports about Mr Brooke, including a report from Dr Rajan Darjee, one of the forensic psychiatrists who examined Mr Brooke for the purposes of the special proceeding I held in December 2025. The parties also provided a number of other reports.
2. In total, I received the following reports, in addition to the exhibits tendered at the special proceeding:

(a) a report from Dr Madeline McCreanor, forensic psychiatrist, dated 3 March 2026;

(b) a report from Dr Darjee, dated 2 April 2026;

(c) a Pre-Disposition Report from the Department of Communities prepared by Ms Emma Gerritzen dated 13 March 2026;

(d) a Pre-Disposition Report from Adult Community Corrections prepared by Ms Nicola Lloyd dated 30 March 2026;

(e) a report from Ms Olivia Wilson from Specialist Support Coordination Services Perth dated 7 April 2026; and

(f) a report from Ms Chloe Witherington, occupational therapist, dated 10 February 2026.

1. I have read and considered all of these reports. Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee also gave oral evidence before me. I will return to their evidence later.
2. In addition to the reports, the CLMI Act provides that a victim of an offence in respect of which a court must make an order may give a victim impact statement to the court to assist the court in determining what order to make.[12] I received in evidence nine separate victim impact statements from 10 victims. They were:

(a) Ray and Heather Rivers (JJ's parents);

(b) Joyce Cecelia Ralph-Rivers (JJ's sister);

(c) Ronette Rivers (JJ's sister);

(d) Delicia Rivers (JJ's sister);

(e) Scott Rivers (JJ's brother);

(f) Terrisha McIntosh (JJ's sister-in-law);

(g) Sara Brooke (JJ's sister);

(h) Kayne Taylor (JJ's best friend and brother); and

(i) Diana Jans (on behalf of JJ's nephew [T]).

1. During the hearing before me yesterday, Kayne Taylor read aloud his victim impact statement and he read aloud the victim impact statement from Mr and Mrs Rivers. Joyce Ralph-Rivers also read aloud her victim impact statement, as well as the victim impact statement from her sister, Delicia, and her brother, Scott.

1. I have considered all of the victim impact statements. They explained to me how much JJ's whole family loved him and how important he was to all of their lives. JJ loved the bush life, going out bush, camping, fishing and crabbing. The Rivers family are a very close and very generous family who look out for each other and for everyone around them. JJ was an essential part of the family and his death is a huge loss to everyone. Mr Brooke was also part of that family. As Mr and Mrs Rivers said, they think of Mr Brooke as a son and have experienced the terrible pain of knowing that one son killed another.
2. All of the statements have explained to me how much pain, hurt, anger and sadness JJ's death has caused his family and friends and how it has changed all their lives and their family forever. The statements have also explained to me the family's fear. Mr and Mrs Rivers told me how even though Mr Brooke is locked up they don't feel safe anymore. The family have told me about their fear of what might happen if Mr Brooke came back to Broome.
3. In relation to the decisions I have to make about Mr Brooke, the victim impact statements have helped me to see a number of things.
4. The first is that, when a family member is killed by violence, it doesn't make it any easier for the victims that the person who killed their loved one might have been mentally ill. The pain is just the same and the loss is just as bad. And in some ways it is even worse, because there are so many questions that don't have answers. As Delicia Rivers said, the main thing she wants to know is, why? Why did Mr Brooke do what he did? And there are just no good answers to those questions. So everyone is left hurt, angry and confused.
5. Secondly, the victim impact statements have helped me to see that, whatever happens with Mr Brooke in the future, he can't go back to live in the community in Broome. Mr and Mrs Rivers are already frightened about what might happen in the future and it would just be too much for them if Mr Brooke ever came back to Broome. Broome has been their home for a very long time. JJ is buried here and they should feel safe living here. They should not have to leave.
6. This is relevant to my decision because Broome is really the only home Mr Brooke has ever known. And now he can't go back there and doesn't have anywhere else to go, where he knows people. As Mr Brooke's counsel, Ms Brennan put it, Mr Brooke 'is now quite alone in the world'. That makes a big difference to the support that would be available to him in the community. It means that any available support in the community could only come from government and professional services.

1. As I have said, the parties called expert psychiatric evidence from both Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee. I found both of their evidence of great assistance. They were both very considered and professional in their evidence and they each brought valuable perspectives to the issues before me.
2. In Dr Darjee's case, he had been able to observe Mr Brooke on a number of different occasions over a long period of time. Dr Darjee first saw Mr Brooke in January 2024 and then again in April and June 2024. Dr Darjee saw Mr Brooke for a fourth time in November 2025, prior to the special proceeding before me, and again on 19 March 2026, prior to preparing his report of 2 April 2026. This enabled Dr Darjee to make an assessment of Mr Brooke's condition and presentation over an extended period of time.
3. Dr McCreanor only saw Mr Brooke once, on 12 January 2026, in preparation for her report of 3 March 2026. While she did not have the advantage of seeing Mr Brooke over an extended period of time, she was nevertheless able to give a considered opinion in relation to his treatment and risks. Those opinions were not very different, in substance, to those of Dr Darjee. Where Dr McCreanor had an advantage, however, was in her knowledge and experience of the treatment of mentally impaired persons in Western Australia. Dr McCreanor is the Acting Head of Clinical Services (non-admitted) with the Western Australia State Forensic Mental Health Service.
4. I will not summarise the evidence of Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee in detail. Indeed, I propose to include the entirety of their evidence in a schedule to these reasons, so that the evidence forms part of the prescribed information available to assist the Tribunal in making its own decisions in relation to Mr Brooke.
5. It is sufficient that I record the effect of the evidence of Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee and my findings in relation to a number of issues.

1. Both Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee agreed that Mr Brooke has, and continues to suffer from, mental impairments. Those impairments include a mild intellectual disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia.
2. Mr Brooke is currently being treated with antipsychotic and antidepressant medication, Olanzipine and Escitalopram. Mr Brooke was first prescribed antipsychotic medication in September 2024, approximately 10 months after his arrest for JJ's murder. He was experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time, including voices in his head. The fact that Mr Brooke was not seen by a psychiatrist during his first 10 months in custody is, in my view, demonstrative of the great difficulty in providing adequate care and treatment for Mr Brooke in a prison.
3. Notwithstanding those difficulties, however, Mr Brooke's condition is much improved from what it was prior to his being treated by a psychiatrist. Dr McCreanor, for example said that, at the time of her assessment, Mr Brooke's mental illness had been 'adequately treated', which she clarified to be a reference to his medication regime. Dr Darjee also reported that since commencing his medication, Mr Brooke had 'an improvement of his psychotic symptoms and an improvement in his mood'.
4. Both Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee, however, reported that Mr Brooke continues to suffer from residual symptoms of his mental illness. Mr Brooke continues to experience auditory hallucinations ('voices in his head'), although they don't happen as often and he feels he has been able to cope with them.
5. The fact that Mr Brooke still has these symptoms means that his treatment could still be better and with better treatment his condition might improve even further. As Dr McCreanor put it, while Mr Brooke's treatment has been adequate, it has not been optimal. To use the words of the CLMI Act in relation to the principles that I must take into account, Mr Brooke is not being 'provided with the best possible treatment, care and support'.
6. I turn then to what Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee say would be 'the best possible treatment, care and support'.

1. Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee both gave evidence to the effect that Mr Brooke was not receiving, and could not receive, the best possible treatment care and support in a prison.
2. Dr McCreanor, for example, was asked by counsel for the State:[13]

Would you agree Mr Brooke would receive the best possible treatment, care and support in accordance with the Objects, Principles and Paramount considerations of the Act if he was either in a hospital or a declared place?---Yes. I would agree.

And prison is not conducive to ensuring that the Objects, Principles and Paramount considerations of the Act are met. Would you agree with that?---I - I would agree.

1. Later, in cross-examination, Dr McCreanor gave the following evidence:[14]

Is, from a medical perspective for someone at your service, satisfactory treatment one that take 17 months into the regime the patient remains with active symptoms of psychosis? Is that - would - do you consider that to be a satisfactory treatment regime?---No. It's not a satisfactory treatment regime.

Thank you. So it would be then a conclusion that you could make that he's not being satisfactorily treated?---Treated - - -

In the prison?--- - - - treated in prison.

Yes?---But - but my - he could be satisfactorily treated in other settings other than the Frankland Centre.

Thank you.

QUINLAN CJ: Such as a declared place if there was one? --- Yes.

1. Dr Darjee's evidence was to the same effect. In his report of 2 April 2026, he said:

Prison is not an appropriate environment when someone has been found unfit to stand trial and/or not guilty by mental impairment. Mr Brooke is particularly vulnerable in prison, and although he has received the equivalent of outpatient mental health treatment in prison, it is notable that he was not appropriately diagnosed or commenced on the appropriate medication for about a year, although now he is receiving appropriate medications at appropriate doses. In hospital he would be reviewed by a psychiatrist weekly and would have day to day support, monitoring and supervision by mental health staff. He should also have access to comprehensive multidisciplinary care, support, monitoring and treatment. In prison, inevitably care, treatment and support for mental illness and disability is not the priority.

1. Dr Darjee expanded on this opinion in the course of his oral evidence.
2. I accept the evidence of Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee in this regard. I find that, right now, the 'best possible treatment, care and support' for Mr Brooke, within the meaning of s 7(2)(c) of the CLMI Act, would be treatment in a hospital.

1. Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee also addressed Mr Brooke's current risk to others if he were to be released into the community. Each of the doctors assessed Mr Brooke's risk using the HCR20v3 risk assessment tool, which is an internationally validated structured risk assessment tool which identifies risk factors known to be associated with violent offending.
2. While there were some minor differences in the 'scores' that they each derived from the application of the risk assessment tool, Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee both reached similar conclusions in relation to Mr Brooke's current risk to the community, if he were to be immediately released.
3. Dr McCreanor, for example, said in her report:

Overall, Mr Brooke scored 10 present and one partial out of 20 in a community setting, or seven present and two partial in a custodial setting on the HCR20v3. This suggests that Mr Brooke could be considered a low to moderate risk of future violence, with this risk greater should he be transitioned directly to the community.

Mr Brooke is a man with complex needs. Without significant levels of support, supervision and monitoring, I would consider that his potential risk would be unacceptable in a community setting.

1. She expanded on this in her evidence:[15]

So if - before he can be released into the community, what would need to occur, Doctor?---So you want to ensure that there are basic - basic things in place such as a safe - safe - a safe place to live, access to appropriate finances to buy - to, you know, ensure that he's - can buy his food and has, you know, ability to get - to get - get places. So really basic things would need to be - need to be sorted. We know that Mr Brooke has needed supported accommodation in the - in the past. When he was in Broome, he was living in the - with the Aboriginal Corporation, and he has been an NDIS participant for quite a number of years. So the - it would be important to get the NDIS back in and have him assessed for what kind of supports that he needs to help him function independently. And also because it has been - it's a big transition from being in custody for a number of years, we would be wanting to do - be wanting a kind of graduate process. I would be concerned that if he was just immediately released without any of those sort of things sorted out. He wouldn't have the capacity to - to organise them for himself, and he - he personally would be at risk, and his mental health would be at risk.

1. Dr Darjee's evidence was to similar effect. In his report of 2 April 2026, he said:

Overall, I have made the following risk judgments guided by the structure of the HCR-20 V3. Without any intervention or management, he is moderately likely to commit further violence in the future, if he commits violence in the future it could cause a high degree of serious harm, and in the community at present there would not be an imminent risk of further violence, but if his mental health deteriorated and he became acutely psychotic there would be an imminent risk of serious violence towards a person that he felt paranoid about. Overall, he is assessed as having a high case prioritisation rating, as he will require comprehensive resources to support and treat him and manage the risk he poses in the community. The services he requires in the community are not available or ready to be put in place yet, he has not been tested in a less secure setting, and he has had no preparation or rehabilitation towards entering the community. Therefore, at present it would not be safe to manage him in the community.

How could Mr Brooke be managed safely back to the community?

1. Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee gave similar opinions as to how Mr Brooke could be managed safely back to living in the community.
2. In essence, they were each of the opinion that it is necessary for Mr Brooke to be 'transitioned' out of a prison to another secure location where he can be treated and gradually reintegrated into community living. They both agree that this would be difficult, but achievable.
3. Dr McCreanor said in her report:

Mr Brooke will require ongoing management of mental illness and the functional impairment from his intellectual disability. As he was unknown to Perth prior to the index offence, he will require comprehensive assessment of his needs and a robust plan developed to provide a safe path forward. This will need joint involvement from the Department of Justice, Department of Communities, NDIS and mental health services to ensure wrap around, patient-centred care is provided.

This assessment process will be longitudinal and it would be challenging to properly consider his varied needs in a prison setting. For any transition to be successful, I would suggest that Mr Brooke would need to be placed in a facility such as a declared place or a hospital.

1. Dr Darjee's evidence was to similar effect. As he said in his 2 April 2026 report:

The usual and best practice would be for him to be admitted to a secure hospital and then to be rehabilitated towards the community through increasing periods of escorted then perhaps unescorted leave. In hospital there would need to be a comprehensive assessment of what he will need in the community in terms of disability support and mental health treatment and supervision. He should be eligible to receive a high amount of NDIS funding. He will need a comprehensive Supported Disability Accommodation/Supported Independent Living package when he returns to the community. He will also need assertive case management by mental health services. Although this could be planned from prison, it would be more appropriate for him to gradually step down to this from a hospital setting.

So, in my view he should initially be placed on a custody order in a secure hospital setting, before then progressing, when ready and when appropriate monitoring, supervision and treatment is in place, to a community supervision order.

1. Dr Darjee explained the gradual nature of this process further in his evidence:[16]

[W]hat you really want to do is, you know, put in place what he will need in the community, and then step him down there gradually so he can get used to the setting and staff can get used to him and, you know, in - you know, all the people that I've worked with who've - because they committed serious events due to psychosis, we've always done that from hospital in a very, very gradual way and, you know, with - with Mr Brooke, that might have to be even more gradual because of his complexity. But, you know, there's a number of people that I've worked with where we've rehabilitated them to the community who - who've been charged with murder, and that's the sort of thing you do, and it sometimes takes many months from when someone starts going into the community to when they're actually able to transition. You know, I've - I've had individuals where that process has taken - taken over the - over a year.

What is available for Mr Brooke's transition to the community?

1. Dr McCreanor's evidence and the Pre-Disposition Report from the Department of Communities prepared by Ms Gerritzen painted a bleak picture in relation to the options for transition to the community for Mr Brooke, and others like him.
2. In all of Western Australia, there is only one secure hospital, the Frankland Centre. And there is only one 'declared place' under the CLMI Act, the Bennett Brooke Disability Justice Centre (Bennett Brook).
3. Dr McCreanor gave evidence that the Frankland Centre has a 30‑bed capacity. All of those beds are fully occupied and there is a waitlist for patients to be admitted to the Centre. As of Wednesday this week there were 20 people on the waitlist. Dr McCreanor gave evidence that, 'because the waiting list is so long, people are often very, very sick when they come into Frankland'.[17]
4. Bennett Brooke has 10 beds, and it currently houses three residents, who are all 10 to 20 years older than Mr Brooke. Ms Gerritzen's report, however, states that Bennett Brooke is 'not a mental health service'. In particular, Ms Gerritzen reported, it has 'no access to acute mental health supports', 'is unable to administer PRN medications', has 'currently extremely limited NDIS funds for therapy and none for support work' and 'extremely limited social opportunities'.
5. There was no evidence before me of any other place in the community in which it would be safe to release Mr Brooke.

1. Before reaching my ultimate conclusion, I can briefly summarise the position in relation to each of the considerations in s 47(1) of the CLMI Act.
2. As to the nature of the offence and the circumstance of its commission,[18] the proven offence for which Mr Brooke was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment was obviously extremely serious. There is no offence more serious than taking the life of another person. The circumstances are described in detail in my earlier reasons for decision.[19] Mr Brooke killed his foster brother in a brutal fashion, in front of members of his family (including children).
3. As to Mr Brooke's character, antecedents, age and health,[20] he is now 24 years of age. He is still a relatively young man. Prior to the killing of JJ he did not have a significant criminal record; he had one adult conviction for obstructing a public officer for which he received a fine and a spent conviction. Mr Brooke's physical health is generally good, but as I have already addressed, he has significant mental impairments.[21] His schizophrenia, in particular, continues to display symptoms although it is relatively well controlled and much improved.
4. Mr Brooke's mental impairment was directly related to his killing of JJ.[22] As I found at the special proceeding Mr Brooke's mental impairment (and in particular his mental illness) deprived him of the capacity to control his actions and the capacity to know that he ought not do the acts that killed JJ.
5. I am satisfied that, the degree of risk that Mr Brooke currently presents to the community[23] is much reduced, because he is presently adequately (although not optimally) medicated and is in a secure environment. His risk to others would however be increased if he were immediately released into the community. I accept the evidence of Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee that Mr Brooke is currently untested in a less secure setting and I find that the risk that he presents to the safety of the community would be unacceptable if he were released into the community now. What Mr Brooke needs to reduce his risk to the community is a graduated transition from his current circumstances, towards a more therapeutic, multidisciplinary regime.
6. In terms of Mr Brooke's risk to himself,[24] while he denies any thoughts of self-harm, I accept Dr McCreanor's evidence that he would be considered at a higher risk of suicide compared to the general population. Dr McCreanor also referred to the need for increased support and observation if Mr Brooke 'were to experience a loss of hope for his future life'. In that regard, I am satisfied that Mr Brooke's hope for his future life will be directly affected by whether he receives the optimal treatment he requires outside of a prison setting.
7. In terms of the resources available in the community for the treatment,[25] care and support for Mr Brooke, I am satisfied that they are currently not adequate. Mr Brooke's social supports beyond professional care are non-existent and he is yet to be the subject of a comprehensive, multi-agency plan designed to address his reintegration back into the community.
8. Having regard to all of these matters, and all of the circumstances, I am bound to conclude that the only order I can lawfully make is a custody order. I am not satisfied that Mr Brooke can be safely managed under a community supervision order at this time.
9. While Mr Brooke's placement on the custody order is a matter for the Tribunal, I recognise, based upon the evidence before me, that the placement options for Mr Brooke available to the Tribunal are very limited. Unless Mr Brooke becomes one of the fortunate (in only one sense) few to be able to be placed in the Frankland Centre, or there is some transformative change to the number and nature of declared places in this State, I recognise that Mr Brooke will remain in a prison, subject to an identical regime of management, control and discipline as prisoners who have been convicted and sentenced for criminal offences.
10. I also recognise that this conclusion means that it is impossible for me to give effect to a number of the principles that I am required, by law, to have regard to in making my decision. The decision that I have made, will not subject Mr Brooke 'to the least possible restriction on [his] freedom consistent with the protection of the community' (s 7(2)(a)). Nor will it provide him 'with the best possible treatment care and support' (s 7(2)(c)).
11. Despite the fact that, in making this decision, I am acting contrary to these principles, I must do so because of the paramount consideration of the protection of the community (s 8). The CLMI Act requires that outcome.
12. I will therefore make a custody order in relation to Mr Brooke.

1. I am now required by s 50 of the CLMI Act to set a limiting term for the custody order. The limiting term is the 'best estimate' of the term of imprisonment that the court 'would, in all the circumstances, have imposed' based on certain assumptions, including that the person had pleaded guilty and that any mental impairment of the person was not taken into account.
2. The law in relation to s 50 of the CLMI Act was explained by me in The State of Western Australia v Chokolich.[26] I need not repeat all of what I said there.
3. It is sufficient that I repeat the conclusion that I reached in relation to charges of murder:[27]

In the case of a charge of murder, therefore, unless the court setting the limiting term is satisfied that s 279(4)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code would have been satisfied, the court must set the limiting term as the life of the person. Given the 'exceptional' nature of a sentence other than life imprisonment generally, it can be expected that the circumstances in which a limiting term on a charge of murder will be set as a term other than the duration of the person's life will be equally exceptional. Indeed, this will be particularly so, given the requirement to exclude from consideration the person's mental impairment. That is because a person's mental impairment at the time of committing an offence (while falling short of s 27 of the Criminal Code) might otherwise have been the principal reason for concluding that it would have been 'clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person' to have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.

1. In Mr Brooke's case, there is no doubt that, on the assumptions required by the CLMI Act, Mr Brooke would have been sentenced to life imprisonment had he been convicted of murder. Assuming that his mental impairment was not taken into account, the killing of JJ was so serious, and its impact on JJ's family and friends so devastating, that Mr Brooke's other mitigating factors (such as his lack of a significant criminal record and early plea of guilty) would have had little weight in light of the objective seriousness of the circumstances of the offence itself.
2. I therefore set the limiting term of Mr Brooke's custody order as the duration of his life.
3. As I made clear in Chokolich,[28] there is no minimum term for a custody order under the CLMI Act. Once a custody order is made the order must be reviewed by the Tribunal and is subject to periodic reviews.[29] In addition, subject to the Tribunal having made a leave of absence order under s 77 of the CLMI Act (which it can do at any time) a custody order may be cancelled by an order of the court that made the custody order[30] or by an order of the Tribunal.[31] Whether that occurs must be determined in accordance with the paramount consideration of the protection of the community and the principles in s 7(2) of the CLMI Act. Punishment, retribution and deterrence have no role to play in such determinations.

1. For these reasons, I make the following orders:

(a) pursuant to s 46(1)(a) of the CLMI Act, a custody order is made in respect of Ian Ralph Brooke; and

(b) pursuant to s 50 of the CLMI Act, the limiting term for the custody order in respect of Ian Ralph Brooke is set as the duration of the life of Ian Ralph Brooke.

1. As I indicated earlier, the transcript of the evidence of Dr McCreanor and Dr Darjee will be reproduced as a schedule to these reasons, so that it may form part of the 'prescribed information' provided to the Tribunal and Chief Mental Health Advocate.
2. I record the court's thanks to JJ's family and friends and to Mr Brooke's mental health advocate, Ms Ikeda, who have ensured that these proceedings have been conducted with great respect and dignity.
3. Finally, I record the court's gratitude to all of the counsel who appeared in these proceedings, Mr Cvetkoski and Ms Finn, who represented the State, and Ms Brennan, who represented Mr Brooke. They have each discharged their respective duties in an exemplary fashion, marked not only by their customary thoroughness and expertise, but also with great sensitivity to the many challenges proceedings such as these involve.

QUINLAN CJ: Thank you, Dr McCreanor. The next person you can see on the screen should be Mr Cvetkoski.

CVETKOSKI, MR: Dr McCreanor, can you see and hear me?‑‑‑Yes. I can.

Dr McCreanor, you are a consultant forensic psychiatrist?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

And at the moment, you're the acting head of clinical services non-admitted?‑‑‑Yes. That's right.

What does that mean: non-admitted?‑‑‑So the non-admitted is basically all parts of State Forensic Mental Health Service except for the inpatient unit. So there's a community forensics team, prison-in-reach team, child and adolescent, and the Banksia Hill - Banksia Hill in-reach team, as well as our two specialised court programs: Start and Links.

And you work at the State Mental - sorry. State Forensic Mental Health Service at Graylands Hospital?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

You provided the Supreme Court of Western Australia with a report for Mr Ian Ralph Brooke?‑‑‑That's correct.

When compiling that report or drafting that report, you met with Mr Brooke for one hour on 12 January 2026?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

And this was in person at the Casuarina Prison?‑‑‑Yes.

In preparation of your report, you also had access to a number of documents?‑‑‑That's correct.

I'm not going to go through each of the documents with you, but at page 2 of the report, under the heading Sources of Information, that is the information that you had access to?‑‑‑Sorry. You just cut out a little bit there. Would you mind repeating that, please?

I think, the information that you had access to is identified in Sources of Information on page 2 of your report?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

Thank you. Now, other than meeting Mr Brooke for the one hour at the Casuarina Prison on 12 January 2026, you have had no other dealings with him. Is that correct?‑‑‑No. I've - no other dealings with Mr Brooke outside of that meeting.

And you're aware that Mr Brooke has not been admitted to a hospital for treatment or observation?‑‑‑Yes. He has not been admitted since I saw him.

Now, can I take you to paragraph 83 of your report. Now, you formed an opinion that Mr Brooke's mental illness was likely causally related to his offending?‑‑‑That's correct.

And at paragraph 51 of your report, you say that you would postulate that Mr Brooke's psychotic illness was the major contributor to his offending?‑‑‑I'm so sorry. Could you please repeat that?

Yes. You say that you would postulate that Mr Brooke's psychotic illness was the major contributor to the index offence?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

And when you are speaking about his mental illness, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

Now, you're aware that Mr Brooke is currently being treated in prison for his mental illness?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

He's being medicated with Olanzapine 20 milligrams at night?‑‑‑Yep. Yes. That's right.

And then he's also receiving some medication in the mornings. He's on 20 milligrams - how do I pronounce that drug?‑‑‑Sorry. I will just go to my report. It is escitalopram.

Escitalopram. Right. Why is it that he receives a different medication at night and a different medication in the morning?‑‑‑So they're two different types of medications. Olanzapine is an antipsychotic medication which is used primarily to treat illnesses such as schizophrenia. It can also be used for other psychotic illnesses. It makes people very - can make people very sedated, so we tend to give it at night and people have a - a good night's sleep. Escitalopram is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medication, commonly known as an antidepressant, and this medication can be used, as the name suggests, for depression, but also it can be used for anxiety and sort of arousal as well. Generally, out of convention, we get - that's often prescribed in the morning, but it can be given at night.

Are you aware when was Mr Brooke was first medicated for his mental illness?‑‑‑I believe it was in - it was whilst he was in Casuarina Prison, and I believe it was in September 2024, though I suspect he was likely prescribed the escitalopram prior to that, but I don't have those prison records.

So in relation to his psychotic illness, are you saying that it was about September 2024 that he was medicated?‑‑‑That's when he saw the prison psychiatrist for the first time, and I believe that was when he was commenced on medication. However, I don't have the prison records, so I can't be definitive about that.

Now, Mr Brooke continues to experience symptoms associated with schizophrenia?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct. He did when I assessed him on 12 January.

At paragraph 46 of your report, you indicated that he reported occasional paranoid beliefs?‑‑‑Yes.

Did you explore with Mr Brooke what those paranoid beliefs were?‑‑‑I likely would have, but I cannot recall the - the extent of that today. It was too many months ago now.

He also reported ongoing auditory hallucinations?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

Was it explored with Mr Brooke what those auditory hallucinations were?‑‑‑So they were generally, as he described them at the time, voices that he would hear externally. They were quite negative, derogatory. They would tell him unpleasant things, but he had - yes. Sorry.

Was there any disclosure about whether or not those auditory hallucinations were command-type hallucinations?‑‑‑He said that, since he has been treated with the antipsychotic medications, the auditory hallucinations would no longer command. They would just be rude and derogatory. But he did note that, prior to starting medication, he had had command auditory hallucinations.

The only way that you were able to conclude that there was no command-type hallucinations is by Mr Brooke self-reporting?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

In your report at paragraph 46, you also indicate that he admitted to ideas of reference from television, which he said he managed by turning off the TV. What do you mean by ideas of reference?‑‑‑So it's when things like a TV or a radio - essentially things that are being said by those mediums have particular reference to the person. So the radio might say, I don't know, the weather is going to be sunny today, and the person may - might - may feel that that means that the radio is telling them that they're going to have a good day very, like, specifically to them.

Did Mr Brooke go into any detail about what was being communicated to him by the television?‑‑‑No. No, I don't recall.

Does the persistence of the auditory hallucinations and the paranoid thoughts over the period that Mr Brooke has been medicated - does that indicate that the medication is not be - not effective?‑‑‑I would say that the medication is at least partially effective. He has reported an improvement in the nature of the symptoms, both in frequency and intensity, with - with treatment. And certainly the - his level of organisation seems to be much better when I assessed him than when the previous assessors spoke with him. So his ability to have that kind of back and forth conversation, follow - you know, follow trends and things, that's all - which is part of a - a psychotic - psychotic illness. But, yes, it would - would suggest that there may - there is probably room for some medication adjustments to try and get a little bit better symptom control. Saying that, not everyone is rendered symptom-free with treatment. A lot of people will have residual symptoms despite good treatment.

In your report at paragraph 75, you speak about Mr Brooke potentially benefiting from medication optimisation?‑‑‑Yes.

Is that what you mean, that the medication requires modification or calibrating in an attempt to stop these symptoms?‑‑‑Yes. We would do that in conjunction with Mr Brooke in - the idea of kind of achieving a particular goal, like working towards being fully symptom free. So that might mean increasing the dose of the medication, might mean adding an additional medication, might mean changing the - changing the medication. But all of these things would be done collaboratively with the person.

How does that process occur in a prison setting?‑‑‑So, generally, the person will see the - see the psychiatrist. They will discuss their symptoms and will - will consider options. And then the - the prison can - the person can be then prescribed a new medication, which goes to the prison pharmacy, and then it's dispensed as usual. And then the person would be - you would be monitored over a - a period of weeks to assess your response. And medication can often take a - a period of time before you can see whether it's effective or not. So I would probably, if I was starting someone on a new medication, I would commence them on it and then be observing over, kind of, six weeks or so to see what the impact of that is. If there was nothing or intolerable side effects after kind of six to eight weeks, we would go, 'Okay. Do we need to look at another medication or increase the dose?'

And in a prison setting, again, that would be assessed by Mr Brooke self-reporting?‑‑‑Yes, largely self - self - self-reporting. Speaking more generally, sometimes people can, if they've got a heavy burden of voices, of auditory hallucinations, they can be quite bothered by them and can be actively talking to them and so, sort of, being a bit distracted, responding to things that - no one else can see and talking to them. So that's a bit more of an objective sign that someone is - is experiencing those voices. For Mr Brooke - Mr Brooke, he doesn't experience that. So we would be relying on self-report.

From the information that you received, you became aware that, two days before Mr Brooke stabbed his foster brother, JJ, he decided not to disclose his symptoms that he was experiencing to a nurse and a doctor when he presented at Broome Hospital. You are aware of that?‑‑‑Yes, I am.

How can you be confident that Mr Brooke is not withholding information about his symptoms when you were interviewing him?‑‑‑Yes. One can never be entirely confident about that. You are relying on the - on the person's report. It also - it's a bit of - we do - have used a bit of nuance and - and context as well. That time when he was first - when he wasn't reporting his symptoms prior to the index offence - he, at that point, hadn't had - hadn't had any treatment, hadn't had really had an exploration with mental health stuff, hadn't had a proper mental health assessment. So his understanding of - of his experiences would be very, very different to what his understanding is of the experiences now. At that time, one can hypothesise that he might have been very scared of what was happening. He couldn't put words to or explain to someone else what was happening. Whereas now, Mr Brooke, with treatment, has a much better understanding that these things that he's experiencing - the voices, the talking to the TV, the paranoid thoughts - are related to a mental illness. While he's not super - super sure about what - what to call it, but that - that - that - that's a little bit moot - but he knows that those things are symptoms related to an illness and that they can be treated. And so we would, sort of, support that understanding about the illness process to help encourage Mr Brooke to be forthcoming with his symptoms, but we are very much - we are relying on - on people and our sort of external observations.

Does Mr Brooke's intellectual disability also affect his ability to communicate his symptoms? Did you find that to be the case when you were treating him?‑‑‑I think to a limited extent. He probably didn't have as much of an expansive vocabulary to describe the experiences as - as another person might do so. But he was able to describe them in a rudimentary way the - with a shared understanding between us. So I feel - fairly common that sometimes intellectual disability can alter how one experiences these psychotic symptoms, so you do have to have that in mind when - when interviewing someone.

If I can now move to the criteria in section 47 of the CLMI Act, I want to speak you about paragraph 75 of your report, you say that:

Mr Brooke will need appropriate management with respect to his disability and mental health to ensure a smooth eventual transition to the community with managed risks.

Without significant levels of support, supervision and, monitoring, his potential risk to the community is unacceptable.

So if - before he can be released into the community, what would need to occur, Doctor?‑‑‑So you want to ensure that there are basic - basic things in place such as a safe - safe - a safe place to live, access to appropriate finances to buy - to, you know, ensure that he's - can buy his food and has, you know, ability to get - to get - get places. So really basic things would need to be - need to be sorted. We know that Mr Brooke has needed supported accommodation in the - in the past. When he was in Broome, he was living in the - with the Aboriginal Corporation, and he has been an NDIS participant for quite a number of years. So the - it would be important to get the NDIS back in and have him assessed for what kind of supports that he needs to help him function independently. And also because it has been - it's a big transition from being in custody for a number of years, we would be wanting to do - be wanting a kind of graduate process. I would be concerned that if he was just immediately released without any of those sort of things sorted out. He wouldn't have the capacity to - to organise them for himself, and he - he personally would be at risk, and his mental health would be at risk.

And from there, we will move to 47(1)(f) of the CLMI Act, that is the degree of risk for himself and the safety of the community because of their mental impairment. You said at paragraph 59 Mr Brooke was considered a low to moderate risk of future violence with the risk greater should he be transferred directly to the community. Why is that the case?‑‑‑So he has - as I outlined in my report, he has a number of positive historical risk factors, but the - the dynamic risk factors - so the - kind of the present clinical ones and the future - and the risk - foreseeable ones - a lot - a lot of those are - are - are kind of managed and mitigated. So he's on - he's on treatment. He has insight into his condition so that he knows that he needs to have treatment, which is a really great thing. He is help-seeking. He is keen to engage with - keen to engage with services. So that - those kind of factors reduce that kind of foreseeable - foreseeable risk, which is why, at this - at this point in time at this assessment, I felt that that was what he - that was - that was what he would be considered. If he not - if he left prison with no - on no treatment and with no safe - no safe place, no supports, then his risk would be a lot higher.

At paragraph 67, you say he will require significant external scaffolding to support his functioning and allow for a risk reduced graduated return to the community?‑‑‑Yes.

So before Mr Brooke could be considered for release, the resources to monitor, manage and support him would be required. Is that what you're saying?‑‑‑Yes.

And at this time, there are no services or supports available for Mr Brooke in the community?‑‑‑Not - not at present, no.

So the scaffolding to support his functioning to allow for a risk-reduced graduated return to the community is simply not in place at the moment?‑‑‑Not at - not at present. No.

When we speak about adequate resources, you've indicated that in your report that Mr Brooke's capacity and willingness to continue treatment for his mental illness has not been tested in the community. That's correct?‑‑‑Yes. That's right. That's correct.

Adequate resources for treatment, care and support will likely be available in the future with appropriate planning, however, would not be present at this time, should he be released directly from custody.

Without significant levels of support, supervision and monitoring, Mr Brooke's risk to the community is unacceptable.

So that's your opinion at this time, that releasing him into the community would be an unacceptable risk to himself and to the community?‑‑‑That's correct.

And you say that prior to Mr Brooke being released into the community, he should be - would assist to transition him to a hospital, or to a declared place?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

And a declared place, is that the Bennett Brook Disability Justice Centre?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

And how does that occur, doctor: transitioning Mr Brooke from prison to either the hospital or the declared place?‑‑‑So - so that - that's a function of the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal. Sorry. As they decide where a person's place of custody will be. Is that - I'm sorry. Is that what you're ‑ ‑ ‑

Yes?‑‑‑Right. Sorry. Yeah. So the - the Mental Impaired - Impairment Review Tribunal will decide the appropriate place for - for him to be detained if he's on a custody order.

Right. But at this time, he's in prison, and it would be an unacceptable risk to release him into the community?‑‑‑To get directly from prison to the community: yes.

Now, under the CLMI Act, under section 8. Sorry. Under section 7(2)(a), this is the Objects, Principles and Paramount consideration. And it reads: 'A person performing a function under this Act must have regard to the following principles: (a) is the person with - so that persons with mental impairment should be subject to the least possible restriction on their freedom consistent with the protection of the community, and (c) that persons with mental impairment in the justice system should be provided with the best possible treatment, care and support.' Would you agree Mr Brooke would receive the best possible treatment, care and support in accordance with the Objects, Principles and Paramount considerations of the Act if he was either in a hospital or a declared place?‑‑‑Yes. I would agree.

And prison is not conducive to ensuring that the Objects, Principles and Paramount considerations of the Act are met. Would you agree with that?‑‑‑I - I would agree.

Thank you, your Honour. That is the examination-in-chief.

QUINLAN CJ: Thank you, Mr Cvetkoski. Yes, Ms Brennan. Doctor, the next person you see on the screen should be Ms Brennan who has some questions for you.

BRENNAN, MS: Dr McCreanor, just to begin with: you were asked about whether you were aware that Mr Brooke had gone to the hospital in Broome two days before the offence?‑‑‑Yes.

And I think the word used was that he had decided not to tell the hospital about his symptoms. Do you recall that question?‑‑‑I do recall that question. Yes.

Yes. Can I just ask whether you think that the term 'decided' is the correct one, knowing how acutely unwell Mr Brooke was at that time?‑‑‑Yeah. I - 'decided' has a - a specific meaning which I don't think can necessarily be applied for Mr Brooke. We don't - we don't know if he decided or if he just didn't because of other - other reasons.

Now, just in terms of your role, the - exactly what you do in terms of your role as acting head of clinical services, non-admitted. So I think you said that you oversee part - in that role, the prison health service; is that correct?‑‑‑I oversee the prison consultation quasi in‑reach that we provide to prisons. We don't - our service does not run justice, the - the health within justice. We provide a certain amount of psychiatric hours and time to - to - to the prisons.

And that prison includes Casuarina; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

I just wanted to ask you some questions now about the Frankland Centre. Is it correct that that's the only secure hospital in the State of Western Australia?‑‑‑It's the only - only forensic hospital in Western Australia.

And it has got a 30-bed capacity; is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.

And all of those 30 beds are generally, fully occupied, for want of a better expression?‑‑‑Yes, they are. Yes.

Yes. Are you able to explain to the Court what the intake process is for somebody to get one of those 30 beds?‑‑‑So the person would need to be referred to the Frankland Centre through - either referred under the Mental Health Act from prison on a form 1A. They can be referred directly from court under a hospital order, which kind of acts very similarly to a form 1A, but with a few key differences. Or they could have their place of custody by the MIRT declared to be at Frankland Centre. They then will go on our - our waitlist and are - are triaged, and we will accept the person when we have capacity to do so.

Are you able to say how many people are on the waitlist at the moment?‑‑‑Yesterday afternoon we had one admission and that left 20 people on the waitlist.

So would it be correct to say that 30 beds is simply not enough to meet the demands of the Frankland patients ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No ‑ ‑ ‑

‑ ‑ ‑ in Western Australia?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ it's not enough.

Are you able to explain to the Court what the model of care is that is provided at the Frankland Centre?‑‑‑So, broadly, we provide sort of, acute, sub-acute and rehab kind of style care at the Frankland. So we have - it's a - Frankland is split into three - three wards, one containing 8 beds, and then a 12-bed and a 10-bed - 10-bed ward. The 8-bed ward, Acacia, is our most acute ward, so that's generally where people will come in when they're first admitted. That can be of quite high - high acuity. Because the waiting list is so long, people are often very, very sick when they come into Frankland. So it can be - it's a - just (indistinct) but the idea is we aim to stabilise and - and - and treat a person's mental illness in the context of their legal setting. But - so we have a mixture of acutely unwell people in Frankland, and we also have people who reside there as their place of - as their place of custody on a custody order. So it's a - it's a bit of a mixed environment.

And - this might sound like a silly question, but are people at the Frankland Centre wearing prison clothes or other clothes?‑‑‑No, they're generally, wearing scrubs, or - there's a lot of tracksuits being worn in Frankland. But yes, it's - it's civilian clothes.

Yes. And is somebody at the Frankland Centre in receipt of their own income, as in Centrelink-like money?‑‑‑If they are on a - if they're on a custody order, yes. They will be in receipt of, yes, a Centrelink income. If they're in Frankland as a remand or sentence prisoner, then they're not.

Now just in terms of the provision of your report to the court, who were you asked to provide this report by?‑‑‑The Community Corrections.

And did they explain to you what the purpose of your report would be?‑‑‑To provide - they did, yes.

Yes. Do you remember the terminology that they used?‑‑‑I don't have the report request in front of me, but my understanding was it was to provide a risk assessment and therapeutic - options for therapeutic interventions and support.

Now, and just to clarify, at the time that you wrote the report, were you aware that Mr Brooke had not only been found not fit to stand trial, but that the special proceedings had concluded and that he had been found not guilty on account of mental impairment?‑‑‑Yes, I was aware that he had been found unfit, yes, and the special proceedings had concluded.

But also not only unfit, but essentially found not guilty for reason of the insanity defence. Were you aware of that?‑‑‑I wasn't aware that that defence was specifically run in the context of the - of the special proceedings, but I have read the - I have read the transcript in the reports.

Thank you. Because it did just seem to me that in your report you did mention that he was unfit a number of times but not that he had been found not guilty. So that's a correct reading of the report, that you weren't specifically aware of the finding of the special proceedings?‑‑‑No, I was - yes, clearly very focused on the unfit - on the unfit aspect, yes.

And in terms of the sources that you've used to write your report, we've established that you interviewed Mr Brooke on 12 January for about one hour at Casuarina Prison; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.

And that's the only interaction you've had with Mr Brooke personally?‑‑‑Yes, I have. That is it.

Did you have any conversations with any of the psychiatrists who have treated Mr Brooke during his time at Casuarina Prison?‑‑‑Very briefly. There are two psychiatrists within our service who had met Mr Brooke over the course of his time in prison. Yes, there - I - there wasn't anything particularly outstanding that I felt I needed to find from them.

And so you've said there that there were two psychiatrists. Is that the entire number that have treated Mr Brooke while at Casuarina, or is that just the number that you've spoken to?‑‑‑They're just - that's just the number that I'm aware of. I - I could not comment on how many people that he has been treated with. I haven't seen those records.

And in your experience as someone overseeing that service, is it likely that it could have been more than two in the 12 month period?‑‑‑Unlikely, because I don't believe - we don't - there were - no, sorry. My apologies. We do have a registrar who - who has spent some time in Casuarina as well, so they may have met Mr Brooke at some point, but I'm not sure. Certainly from our service provision, we've only had - we've only provided two psychiatrists in the last - just over two years to Casuarina.

And when you say you have provided two psychiatrists, neither of those are full-time based at the prison, are they?‑‑‑No.

QUINLAN CJ: You might clarify, Ms Brennan. I may have misunderstood this, but I understand that there may also be prison psychiatrists who are attached to the Department of Justice Corrections rather than the ones who come in occasionally.

Are there any other permanent psychiatrists based at the - at Casuarina prison, Doctor?‑‑‑I don't believe so, but I - I would - could not speak confidently to that. I don't know.

Yes, thank you. Thank you. From what you know about Mr Brooke's case, Doctor, are you able to explain how it possibly was that Mr Brooke went for some 10 months after his reception into the prison system before he commenced on any psychotic medication?‑‑‑This is obviously speculative, because I don't have the access to the prison records, but often people can go under the radar in prison if they're - despite being very symptomatic - if they're not behaviourally disturbed. The capacity of the mental health team to see everyone in prison is - that's just not possible, so they, much like us, triage the - the - the people and will attend to those who urgently need it, and if someone is just quietly unwell in their cell, not causing any problems, then they may not come to the attention of the mental health team.

So would it be correct to say that that's what - the mental health system provided in the prison is not so much person-centred as so much is prison-centred?‑‑‑Yes, I wouldn't call it person-centred.

In fact, it seems that when someone's received into the prison, no inquiries are actually made as to why they've been received into the prison; is that correct?‑‑‑I don't - I don't work - I don't work for the Department of Justice, so I can't comment on their intake procedures, yes.

Yes. Thank you. If I could just take you to some parts of your report, paragraph 57, Doctor, you say:

was diagnosed with a mental illness after being remanded, we have no understanding of how Mr Brooke may engage with treatment outside a custodial setting.

Yes. Do you agree, though, that Mr Brooke is compliant with treatment within the prison?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

And now he has insight into his mental impairment; is that correct?‑‑‑He has much more insight, yes.

And he has expressed regret to you about his offending actions?‑‑‑He did, yes.

And he understands the gravity of the consequences of those actions?‑‑‑I believe he did.

Yes. And there's also information available to you, isn't it, that Mr Brooke had previously engaged well with service providers in the Broome community?‑‑‑Not mental health specific ones, but I understand he was engaged with NDIS for a number of years prior to the offence.

So support services around his intellectual disability?‑‑‑Yes.

Yes. So would you agree that there's no reason to think that - while there's no prior history to look at for an indication, there's also no reason to think that he would not engage with treatment outside a custodial setting?‑‑‑There's no obvious reason that he wouldn't engage. However, you know, we - as - it hasn't been tested, so I - I can't speak more confidently about that.

Should Mr Brooke engage in use of substances, such as methamphetamine, beyond his previous marijuana use, it could be considered that the risk of relapse would be increased due to the elevated dopamine mediated psychogenic capacity.

Yes. Would you agree that there's no history in any of the reports on Mr Brooke or notes that suggest that he has ever used methamphetamine before?‑‑‑I can't be - I can't be confident that he has never used it, but I agree that he - he was not primarily using methamphetamine and doesn't have a significant history of methamphetamine use.

And there's certainly no indication that he has been using that drug in prison, is there?‑‑‑Not that I am aware of, but again, I don't have access to the - the prison records.

And in your consultation with Mr Brooke, would you agree that he expressed that he really has no desire to be involved in illicit drugs, that he doesn't like drugs?‑‑‑I can't be - I can't say that confidently. He's certainly - yes. I - I - I wouldn't be able to state that confidently, no.

This scenario offered, that if he was to be in the community and use methamphetamine - is that just a standard scenario that one looks at? In fact, that there was nothing in Mr Brooke's case itself that directed you to make that inquiry or that hypothesis?‑‑‑Yes. So scenario planning, we do - we need to think about. Again, it's all - all theoretical, all - all hypotheses. What - what would be the worst thing that would happen, and how - what kind of path would meet - go towards the worst thing, and how can we prevent that from happening? So yes, I - I agree that that is an - is an unlikely scenario. It is, however, possible, and the combination of methamphetamine and - and psychosis is notoriously bad. So it is something to think about. However, I think that the - the risk of that is low, particularly when he's well-supported.

Yes. If I can take you now to paragraph 72 of your report, Doctor, it says:

Mr Brooke requires long-term accommodation in an environment which can provide structure, supervision, support and foster abstinence from substances.

In your experience in the forensic mental health services, would you agree that a prison would not be considered a place that fosters an abstinence from substances?‑‑‑I would agree.

In fact, it's often the case, isn't it, that vulnerable prisoners, or any prisoner, is really readily exposed to a list of substances in the prison setting?‑‑‑I agree.

If I can now take you to paragraph 3 of your report, the concluding sentence is that:

Mr Brooke's mental illness had been adequately treated, reducing his future risk.

And when you use the term 'adequately', is that referring to your view of the medication regime that he's prescribed?‑‑‑Yes.

And were you able to say how regularly that regime has or is being reviewed?‑‑‑I don't have access to the prison records, so I - I - I couldn't comment on that.

It has, sort of, already been explored with you somewhat, but in your view, Doctor, if you're able to offer it, if Mr Brooke was in the Frankland Centre, would he be receiving the same medication in the same dosages?‑‑‑It - it would be likely that the medication would be reviewed, and it may - it may be adjusted if he was in the Frankland Centre.

And part of the reason that it would likely be or could be adjusted is because he's still experiencing symptoms, isn't he?‑‑‑Yes.

And not only for Mr Brooke's own health but really for the protection of the community at large, it would be better to have Mr Brooke be symptom-free?‑‑‑Whilst that is often a - a - yes. That is a - that is a goal. It's not necessarily achievable.

But for Mr Brooke, a 24-year-old being treated for the first time, and really only a little, 18 months, into being treated, we're not in the category of being able to say that he's treatment-resistant ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No.

‑ ‑ ‑ are we?‑‑‑No. He wouldn't be considered treatment-resistant at this point in time.

There's still a lot of exploration that could be done to see whether Mr Brooke ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

And that is what you were getting at when you used the term 'medication optimisation' in paragraph 27 ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That's correct.

Doctor, are you able to explain to the court how your view about Mr Brooke perhaps requiring medication optimisation sits with the conclusion that he has been adequately treated in prison?‑‑‑So his symptoms have significantly reduced, and his functional capacity has increased with - with treatment, so he's at a - at level where he can do his daily - do his daily tasks. He's not - he's not grossly distressed. He can, sort of, live his life with these symptoms in the - in the background. It could be better, but it's, sort of, at a - it's at a level that he can - that he can function, which is what I mean by 'adequate'. It's not optimal. It's - it's adequate.

But as you said, certainly not optimal in terms of best practice for Mr Brooke's health?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

And, Doctor, in your professional experience and knowledge, do you agree that the longer a person experiences symptoms of psychosis, the worse their prognosis becomes?‑‑‑It certainly can be, yes.

And when I say 'the worse the prognosis becomes', that means both their ability to get well and be symptom free ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

‑ ‑ ‑ and the time that it might take for them to do so?‑‑‑Yes.

And it also, doesn't it, increase the chance that the longer that the person stays unwell for - in this setting, I'm talking about having symptoms of psychosis - the greater the chance is that the person may ultimately end up being treatment resistant?‑‑‑Certainly, a - I can't completely agree with that statement, but certainly, a longer period of active psychosis can increase the difficulty in treating.

So taking those propositions, it's really imperative, isn't it, that everything be done for someone of Mr Brooke's age ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

‑ ‑ ‑ and in terms of the context to get him symptom-free as soon as possible?‑‑‑Yes. That would be the aim.

Are you able to tell the court, Doctor, what the current process is for monitoring Mr Brooke's medication regime in Casuarina prison? Is that something you're able to ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑I don't have that. No. I don't have that information, sorry.

But I think that you were - you told my learned friend in his question in one of your answers that it is the case that, really, anyone reviewing that medication is likely to be reliant on self-reports only; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes. Or reports of - from staff about whether he has gone up and got his medication. Yes.

Sorry. What's that last part? Whether he?‑‑‑Reports from prison staff about whether he has attended and received his medication ‑ ‑ ‑

Whether he's actually taking it?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ at medication dispensing times. Yes.

Do you agree, Doctor, that it is best practice for a treating psychiatrist to monitor more closely a patient who has known risk factors for side effects of medication?‑‑‑Yes, that would be reasonable.

Yes. And would you agree that there is an increased risk of diabetes for users of Olanzapine?‑‑‑Yes.

And as an Aboriginal man, Mr Brooke would be considered to have an increased risk of diabetes?‑‑‑Yes.

So it would be imperative in terms of his risk factor status that he is being closely monitored when he's on Olanzapine, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

But I think you've answered, and you say you don't - you can't say whether that's happening in the prison or not?‑‑‑Yes. I don't know, sorry.

If he was in the Frankland Centre, how would that risk factor be managed and monitored?‑‑‑The standard metabolic monitoring involves blood - blood tests - I want to say three to six-monthly - looking at blood - blood glucose, cholesterol, often check liver as well and those sort of functions. We would also look at doing annual EC - ECGs - so looking - which is the electrocardiogram, looking at the electrical patterns of the heart on an annual basis. And this is - this is both inpatient and outpatient. We would still have the same metabolic monitoring. Also be monitoring a person's weight and their body mass index as well.

Just returning, sorry, quickly, Doctor, to that question about the model of care at the Frankland Centre; is it the case that it's really a multidisciplinary team as well that provides treatment?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.

And does that include occupational therapists?‑‑‑Yes. It does.

And is it the occupational therapists or another disciplinary member that does education with the patients?‑‑‑I - I believe it is probably across - most of the allied health specialties do education as well as psychoeducation provided by the doctors. The caveat is, I haven't worked at Frankland for a few years now, so that - that's based on my knowledge from when I last worked there in 2021.

Yes. And does the multidisciplinary team have regular case management meetings?‑‑‑Yes.

And that's critical, isn't it, because the input from different disciplines is to what is being seen and observed at different times on the wards, or the wing?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.

Thank you. Doctor, if I can just now take you to your summary at page 86 in the report. You say that:

In order to fully assess his needs and identify the optimal community framework for him, I believe he would require placement in a setting other than a prison for this to occur.

At the time of this assessment, Mr Brooke demonstrated insight into his mental health needs and was adherent to treatment with oral medications which he found efficacious. Consequently, Mr Brooke would not be appropriate for the Frankland Centre as he does not meet the criteria outlined in part 3, division 3, section 64(4)(c) of the Criminal Law Mental Impairment Act.

Yes. I just want to - and I want to premise this with I'm not being an all-critical, doctor. I'm just interested in whether that's your interpretation alone of that section of the Act or is this how the Frankland Centre and the Forensic Mental Health Service understands that provision of the Act?‑‑‑I can only speak to that that's my interpretation. That the person has to have a mental illness that isn't able to be treated in another setting.

So your interpretation then of another setting is could be treated in prison. Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.

And not - couldn't be treated in the community?‑‑‑Another - in another setting that could - and my apologies. I don't have the Act in front - in front of me.

I will read the language ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑My - my understanding is that he doesn't have an illness that can only be treated in Frankland. He could be treated elsewhere.

QUINLAN CJ: I think just so that we're - and, of course, we're talking about the meaning of legislation.

QUINLAN CJ: Which is a particular specialty, but that the actual words relate to decisions or determinations of the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal and the criteria is, the tribunal is satisfied that the treatment can only be provided satisfactorily at an authorised hospital.

QUINLAN CJ: Do I understand, really, Dr McCreanor and counsel, the focus of the issue that you're discussing is around the word 'satisfactorily'?

QUINLAN CJ: Would you agree with that, Dr McCreanor, from your point of view in terms of ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

BRENNAN, MS: So this is despite the - your conclusion or - and whether it's your conclusion or the conclusion of the service in which that it's not - the Frankland Centre would likely be - not be appropriate: that's despite the fact that we're now, I think, 17 months into a treatment regime and Mr Brooke is still experiencing symptoms, that that would be satisfactory treatment. Is that correct?‑‑‑I'm sorry. Can you please restate that?

Sorry. I will rephrase it. Is, from a medical perspective for someone at your service, satisfactory treatment one that take 17 months into the regime the patient remains with active symptoms of psychosis? Is that - would - do you consider that to be a satisfactory treatment regime?‑‑‑No. It's not a satisfactory treatment regime.

Thank you. So it would be then a conclusion that you could make that he's not being satisfactorily treated?‑‑‑Treated ‑ ‑ ‑

Yes?‑‑‑But - but my - he could be satisfactorily treated in other settings other than the Frankland Centre.

QUINLAN CJ: Such as a declared place if there was one?‑‑‑Yes.

BRENNAN, MS: That's right. That concludes my questions, doctor.

QUINLAN CJ: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions myself, Dr McCreanor. They won't take long, and then I will just ask counsel, each, whether they have any questions before Mr Cvetkoski asks you any questions in re-examination. It's a pretty simple one, and I think I know the answer to it, Dr McCreanor, but it's important that I'm not assuming things. When you interviewed Mr Brooke - let me just find the reference. This is a paragraph 8 of your report, at the top of page 4 - do you have that in front of you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

You said there that Mr Brooke reported that, in recent months, his main concern regarding his mental health was related to the duration of the time he was locked in his cell. He said that they had limited time outside of the cells and, prior to his interview, sometimes only receiving two hours out of the cell in the morning. Now, am I right in understanding that, as far as you're aware, that when Mr Brooke or somebody like Mr Brooke is in the prison setting, he is subject to exactly the same regime as any prisoner who is there sentenced to an offence?‑‑‑Yes.

So, so far as you're aware, he is locked in a cell in a unit at the prison for the same amount of time and amongst any other prisoner?‑‑‑Yes. That - that's my understanding.

There's not, so far as you're aware, or the psychiatrists who do the in-reach in your system, there's not a separate part of the prison where people who are not guilty by reason of mental impairment are treated?‑‑‑No, there's not.

And, for all intents and purposes, the psychiatrist that goes in to treat people wouldn't know whether or not the person was a sentenced prisoner or a person who was there because they were not guilty by reason of mental impairment?‑‑‑They would know if they looked at the person on TOMS. That information is - is contained there. Yes.

But in terms of they're wearing prison greens, they're otherwise, subject to the same regime, etcetera?‑‑‑There's no other visual mark - marker that would set these people aside from regular - other prisoners.

Thank you, Dr McCreanor. Is there anything that arises?

QUINLAN CJ: Dr McCreanor, if you can see and hear me again?‑‑‑Yes.

Thank you very much for your attendance to give evidence today. You have now completed your evidence and you're excused from further attendance. Thank you?‑‑‑Thank you very much.

QUINLAN CJ: Thank you, Dr Darjee. The next person you see on the screen should be Ms Brennan?‑‑‑Thank you, your Honour.

BRENNAN, MS: Dr Darjee, just for completeness sake, can you just confirm for the Court your qualifications?‑‑‑Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science from the University of Edinburgh. I have a medical degree from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. I have two postgraduate research degrees - a Master of Philosophy and a Doctor of Medicine - both from the University of Edinburgh as well. I am a Fellow of the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, and I'm a Fellow of the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. I have a Certificate of Specialist Training in Forensic Psychiatrist - Psychiatry from the UK, and I'm an accredited member of the Forensic Faculty of the College here in Australia.

Thank you. And it's correct to say, isn't it, that you've now had five different consultations with Mr Brooke over a period of 27 months?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

Yes. And I'm just going to take you to paragraph 35 of the report of 2 April 2026?‑‑‑Yes. I've got that in front of me.

And halfway through that paragraph, you say: 'Prison just is not the right place to support, care for and treat him, and to rehabilitate him and progress him towards the community'?‑‑‑Yes.

Are you able to explain why you offer that opinion?‑‑‑Mr Brooke has got schizophrenia, which is a severe mental illness. He also has significant developmental problems. He has a mild intellectual disability in the context of foetal - foetal alcohol syndrome. So, you know, what he requires, especially now that he has been found not guilty due to mental impairment, is to have care and treatment, and prisons are not places for care and treatment. Prisons are places for punishment and containment of people who've been remanded for or found guilty of crimes. And so I think there's a number of reasons why prison is inappropriate. One is he has been found - he hasn't been found guilty of a crime. And secondly, most importantly, you know, he has a severe mental illness. He needs to be treated in hospital. I mean, most jurisdictions in the world, when someone is in his situation, they treat people in hospital. You know, I've - I've not come across a jurisdiction where, you know, the - or rarely come across a jurisdiction where secure hospital treatment is not what happens for someone charged with murder who has a severe mental illness. And, you know, prison - you know, the priority in prison is what prisons do. It's not care and treatment for people with mental illness or disability. And - and no matter how much we try and put in place good quality services in prison, you know, day-to-day, a prison is not about care for people with mental health problems or disability. And that's why, you know, every civilised jurisdiction I know of in the world has secure hospitals, and they send people in his position to hospital, because that is right from a clinical perspective, a humanity perspective, a human rights perspective, and also from a legal perspective. You know, it's - it's what should happen to someone in his situation. I - I - and I - I, you know, I almost feel I shouldn't be having to justify that view, because in most places I've worked, no one would even question that.

Yes. Thank you. And Dr Darjee, in preparation of writing this report, you were able to review the medical records of Mr Brooke during his time in custody since November 2023; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes. That is correct.

And from all that you know about Mr Brooke's case and his background, what was your overall conclusion of the level of treatment that he has been receiving in prison?‑‑‑Look. He - he got the level of treatment that you might expect someone to get in prison. You know. You're pretty limited in what you can do in prison. You can have the occasional review with a mental health nurse or some other mental health clinician. You can have an appointment with a psychiatrist. You can be prescribed medication. You might be able to get some support and counselling. That's about all you can do in prison. And, you know, he - he has had those things available to him so, you know - you know, he has had the things available that people have available in prison, but, you know. For example, I - I think it took way too long to actually get him to see a mental health clinician, to get him started on treatment. I remember having conversations with you, and I remember having conversations with other people about the fact that he really needed to see a mental health clinician and to be started on antipsychotic medication. And, you know, at one point, no one was quite sure who the person who he was seeing was. It turns out they were a counsellor that wasn't actually someone who's part of a mental health team. And eventually, I think - I think it was about September 2024 - he saw a psychiatrist, and he got started on anti-psych medication. So that's a - a long time to go without being treated. Since then, he has had psychiatric reviews. He has had appropriate medication. But, you know, what - what he has had is the equivalent of - you know, outpatient treatment on a voluntary basis while in prison. He hasn't had the type of treatment you would expect someone to get who has committed serious violence due to his first episode of psychosis, which is, you know, day to day, week to week, multidisciplinary mental health care. He hasn't had that. So - and that's not to criticise people who've treated him in prison. I mean, he - he - they - they've treated him as one would expect in most prisons in Australia. But he hasn't had - he certainly hasn't had comprehensive mental health or disability treatment or care.

Yes. And you talk about that gap between when he has gone into the prison and when he was first medicated. Is it correct to say that the longer that one stays unwell for, the worse their prognosis is?‑‑‑Yes. That is correct. You know, that's one of the reasons why we try and treat people as soon as we can, is because the longer someone remains unwell, the more - the more likely they're to develop something we call treatment resistance.

Yes. And in terms of your recent assessment of Mr Brooke which revealed that Mr Brooke is still hearing voices, would you say that he's still experiencing symptoms of psychosis?‑‑‑I mean, he - he's much better than when I first met him, but he's still experiencing symptoms of psychosis. Yes, he's still occasionally hearing voices. When people interview him, he's less distressed by them. He's better able to cope with them. But, again, in someone in his situation, if I was treating him, my aim would be to try and get him into a situation where he's not experiencing hallucinations at all, especially when the illness has led to such an episode of serious violence. You want to try and treat his illness as effectively as possible.

And is that because, if you don't do that, then again, the chance that he will ever end up symptom free sort of reduces?‑‑‑Well, there - there - there's that, but also, you know, if he's not completely recovered, then stress and other things in the future, for example - hopefully not - but coming off medication, taking substances. You know. He's in a position where he's going to become - he's going to deteriorate much more quickly if he's not fully treated than if he is fully treated. And some people - I mean, I come across this term - I don't like it; I never use it - called baseline, where, you know, mental health clinicians talk about people being at baseline. I just think that's a lazy term for, you know, we've done as well as we can and they're - and they're as treated as they can be, but, you know, with psychosis, there's always the opportunity to treat it to the extent the psychotic symptoms go away, and that should be the aim, especially in a complex forensic case.

You are aware that he has been on olanzapine now for some time?‑‑‑Yes, I am.

And I can't remember the name, but it's the scientific name for Lexapro, essentially, the antidepressant?‑‑‑Yes, that's why I think it's escitalopram.

Thank you. In terms of that, considering that has been the regime for some time now, if you were the treating psychiatrist and he was your clinical patient, what approach would you be taking to the fact that that regime has been stable for some time, yet he's still experiencing symptoms?‑‑‑I suppose I would be having a discussion with him about whether he wanted treatment to progress so that we could try and stop the voices altogether, and if he did want to do that, I would be having conversations with him about either - I mean, the general principle is - when you're treating someone with psychosis, is you either try increasing the dose, as long as it's safe and not causing too many medical problems, or you try an alternative medication and, you know, that - those are the kinds of discussions that I would be having with him. Again, I'm - I - I, yes, fully acknowledge that he's much better now than he was, now that he has been on olanzapine for some time, but I still think, you know, it - it's best to try and get people completely better if you can.

And with the drug olanzapine, it's true, isn't it, that diabetes is one of the known side effects, or increased risk of having diabetes because of the olanzapine?‑‑‑Yes. I mean, with - with olanzapine and other similar antipsychotics, we talk about a risk of what we call metabolic syndrome, and basically problems with things like blood sugar regulation, problems potentially in relation to blood fat levels - you know, things that can risk you developing diabetes, but can also increase risk, for example, of cardiac problems. So those are sorts of things that are - are a risk of olanzapine and that you have to keep an eye on if someone's on a drug like olanzapine.

And the - in terms of keeping an eye on it, do you have to do that more closely, or should you do that more closely if the person is in a risk - a higher risk profile for those side effects?‑‑‑Yes. If someone has got risk factors for diabetes, risk factors for heart disease, whatever those risk factors are. I mean, just as a GP would do in the community, you have to keep a closer eye on them to make sure that you - you're doing what you can to - that certain things aren't becoming concerning, like blood pressure, blood sugar level, etcetera, but also to - to - if - if those things become problematic, to - to do what you can to mitigate those things.

Yes. And in terms of Mr Brooke's profile, the fact that he is an Aboriginal man - would you say that that increases his risk profile for those side effects?‑‑‑Yes, it - it - it does. I mean, we know that, for various reasons, people who are Aboriginal have an increased risk of - of cardiac problems, and so it's important to, you know, consider that to be another risk factor, like having high blood pressure or something like that, so that you - you keep an eye on these things and just ensure that, you know, he's not developing any further physical health problems.

And in terms of keeping an eye on things, it would be correct to say, wouldn't it, that that's easier to do in a hospital than in a prison?‑‑‑Yes, in some ways it is easy to in hospital. I mean, there - there are - having said that, there are kind of a number of people on antipsychotic medications in prisons in Australia, throughout the world, especially people who are much - who - who are very stabilised, especially people where their psychosis hasn't caused their offending, so - and then we do the monitoring in prison. But yes, a hospital is a healthcare setting where you have nurses responsible for day-to-day management and care, and you have doctors, and one of the things that you would definitely set up is - is good metabolic monitoring.

And in terms of the nurses that are available to psychiatrists in forensic settings or forensic hospitals, what are the other benefits of that sort of multidisciplinary approach to care?‑‑‑Well, you know, in hospital, the - the day-to-day observation and support is done by qualified mental health nurses. It's not done by prison officers because mental health nurses have got training in mental health problems, mental health treatment. They also have some training in - in physical health as well, so - and they're able to, kind of, monitor people's mental states and symptoms, provide day-to-day support if people are struggling. And they're - they're - they're also able to pick up if there are potentially problems: for example, someone doesn't seem to be on enough medication. And usually, in a forensic mental health setting, like a secure hospital, there would be a weekly clinical team meeting where the nursing staff, the psychiatrists and other members of the multidisciplinary team, which would usually include occupational therapy, psychology, social work, would discuss the week-to-week progress and treatment of patients to look at, you know, who should be involved, what assessments should be undertaken, what interventions are going to be put in place, and to plan all those measures. That's the, kind of, standard approach to secure patient care.

And because of that, is it the case that then, as a psychiatrist, less reliance needs to be based on self-reports from the patient?‑‑‑Yes. I mean, in a way, yes, what - what Mr Brooke is getting at the moment is, kind of, outpatient treatment. He happens to be in prison. So you know, there's reliance on what he's reporting. I mean, in prison, you can also get a report from prison staff as well. But, you know, in - in hospital you have, you know, 24/7 mental health staff, mental health care. So for example, you know, it's not uncommon that, you know, patients, kind of, don't report things that are going on, or report things because they perceive them in a different way from other people. And you have that ability to - to have professionals, who - who know what they're looking for, actually, kind of, reporting how someone is functioning and presenting day to day.

And those issues with self-reporting and the reliability or accuracy of it - they're heightened, aren't they, with someone with an intellectual disability like Mr Brooke?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely. I think it's always difficult, when someone has got an intellectual disability, you know, to - to get a clear idea of what's going on for them because when people of - with intellectual disability develop psychosis, they don't always have the - the - the language or, you know, the ability to communicate exactly what's going on. I mean, it may also be that when people have intellectual disability, the actual experience of psychosis is very different to people without intellectual disability because, you know, psychosis is basically a type of brain dysfunction. And if you've got intellectual disability, and you've already got compromised brain functioning, then the actual nature of psychosis can be potentially different. So you know, there are various challenges when you're dealing with someone who has already got cognitive difficulties.

QUINLAN CJ: Thank you. Dr Darjee. I'm now going to ask Mr Cvetkoski if he has any questions. He should be the person that you see on the screen next?‑‑‑Thank you, your Honour.

CVETKOSKI, MR: Dr Darjee, can you hear and see me?‑‑‑Yes, I can.

Dr Darjee, Mr Brooke's condition can be described as a complex case?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely.

And that's because of his intellectual disability and his mental illness?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

And as we sit here today, Mr Brooke still suffers from symptoms of his schizophrenia. He still has auditory hallucinations?‑‑‑Yes. As I said earlier, they're - they're much reduced, and I think he copes with them much better now, but he continues to have auditory hallucinations at times.

Notwithstanding he has received treatment for over a year, he continues to have - although reduced symptoms, he still suffers from those symptoms?‑‑‑Yes, he does, and - and they're - you know, from what he reported to me and also from reviewing the records.

So the best or optimal care for Mr Brooke would be in a facility such as a hospital and not a prison. He will get the optimal - yes?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely. The - the best - the place where he would get the best and appropriate care and treatment would be a secure hospital.

Yes. And as you said, the care that he is receiving through the prison system is really outpatient type treatment?‑‑‑Yes. I mean, that's all you can deliver in a prison setting. You know, I often think - I mean, some prisons - I don't think in WA, but in other states - do have, kind of, what they call inpatient psychiatric units. But even in those prisons - I've been to some of them in Victoria - you know, day to day, most of the functions are carried out by prison officers. And if you think about Mr Brooke's situation at the moment, he's in prison day to day. He's getting what happens to prisoners day to day. And you know, he gets - he gets some outpatient appointments with mental health clinicians. That - that's - that's what he gets.

With all of your experience and expertise, that's just not - would you agree - conducive for Mr Brooke to deal with his mental health?‑‑‑Absolutely. I mean, I - I - I - I think I - I mentioned in my report, I - you know, I - I don't know anyone who would say that, when someone has had a severe psychotic illness, committed a very serious offence directly because of that psychotic illness, forgetting about his developmental problems - that being in prison would be an appropriate way to support, treat or contain someone. Then you add in the fact that he has got his developmental problems as well, and you know, prison is clearly an inappropriate place to contain him, treat him and care for him.

Dr Darjee, can I move to your report. This is a paragraph 32 of your report. It's about halfway down. You say overall, he's assessed as having high case prioritisation rating. What do you mean by that?‑‑‑A high - when you're using tools like the HCR-20, the final rating that you give is really a rating of how much effort, how much resources, how much in the way of services do you need to put in place to prevent further violence. And the reason I've assessed him as a high case priority is because he's going to need comprehensive services both to help him because of his developmental issues, but also to make sure his mental illness is properly treated and monitored. And he's going to need to be kept a close eye on, you know, in an institutional setting or in the community, for an indefinite period of time, primarily because, you know, if he were to deteriorate again in his mental state, because what he did was so serious, one would want to make sure that - you know, that you could get on top of that very quickly. And that's the issue usually with people with psychosis who have committed serious violence. It's not that, day to day, they pose an ongoing risk, but you have to really look out for deterioration because if he deteriorated, started becoming paranoid about an individual, as he did about his stepbrother - his foster brother, then you would be very concerned about that for obvious reasons. You would want to get on top of that straight away.

Yes. And you say in your report that he will require comprehensive resources to support and treat and manage the risk he poses in the community. And as you said, that will include quite intensive supervision, so if there is a deterioration in his mental health, that could be picked up and can be dealt with before he becomes a risk to anyone else or himself?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely. I think, you know, in the future - and hopefully, he will get the - the NDIS funding that - that he requires, but I think he's - he's probably likely to need, you know, supported accommodation with 24-hour support workers for his disability needs, and then that will have to be in place so that he can function on a day-to-day basis. And then he will have to have those staff being able to work with a mental health team, so you would want there to be a mental health case manager, a psychiatrist, probably other members of the multidisciplinary team in terms of mental health, who can work alongside those disability supports to make sure he's supported but also so that those day-to-day support staff can pick up any signs that they're concerned, in a way, a bit like the staff in the accommodation where he was before the offending became concerned about him speaking to himself. You know, if any, you know, member of the support team in the future became concerned that he was talking to himself, you would want them to kind of call the case manager straight away so that the mental health team could consider the options, you know, changing to medication, increasing supervision or potentially hospitalisation.

So that's the type of wraparound support that Mr Brooke would need if he was in the community?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely. He would - he would - that will have to be in place before he's able to be managed in the community.

And as we are in court today, those services are simply not in place. They're not available at the moment?‑‑‑Yes, as - as far as I'm aware, there - there hasn't - there's no plan in place for NDIS support in the community. So, you know - and that - in - in some ways, that's the - that's the foundations for whatever happens in the community. That - that's the basics. The accommodation, the day-to-day support staff is going to need to function. You know, as far as I'm aware, that's not in place. But the other thing is, as I mentioned in my report, you know, putting that in place and then rehabilitating someone from prison to that, I think, is more difficult than it is stepping down from a treatment setting like a hospital or, say, a - a unit for people with disabilities, because what you really want to do is, you know, put in place what he will need in the community, and then step him down there gradually so he can get used to the setting and staff can get used to him and, you know, in - you know, all the people that I've worked with who've - because they committed serious events due to psychosis, we've always done that from hospital in a very, very gradual way and, you know, with - with Mr Brooke, that might have to be even more gradual because of his complexity. But, you know, there's a number of people that I've worked with where we've rehabilitated them to the community who - who've been charged with murder, and that's the sort of thing you do, and it sometimes takes many months from when someone starts going into the community to when they're actually able to transition. You know, I've - I've had individuals where that process has taken - taken over the - over a year.

At the present time, though, you would agree - and I think - you do say in your report at paragraph 32 that, at present, it would not be safe to manage Mr Brooke in the community?‑‑‑No. It wouldn't. He's untested and the resources aren't in place.

And the optimal position would be for Mr Brooke to be in the hospital, for him to be treated in the hospital, and then to be a - then there to be a gradual movement from hospital into the community, but that process to be carefully supervised and monitored.

Yes, absolutely, and I think it has to be done carefully because of the - you know, partly because of his complexity, but also because of the nature of the - the charge that he was found not guilty of due to mental impairment.

QUINLAN CJ: Thank you. Do you have any re-examination?

QUINLAN CJ: Dr Darjee, if you can see and hear me again, that completes your evidence?‑‑‑I can.

Thank you for your attendance again. You're now excused from further attendance and you're free to go?‑‑‑Thank you, your Honour.

I certify that the preceding paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

Principal Associate to the Hon Chief Justice Quinlan

[1] The State of Western Australia v Brooke [No 4] [2025] WASC 512 (Brooke [No 4]). These reasons should be read together with those reasons.

[11] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Regulations 2004 (WA), reg 7.

[19] Brooke [No 4] [45] ‑ [54] (Quinlan CJ).

[26] The State of Western Australia v Chokolich [2026] WASC 346 (Chokolich) [60] - [73] (Quinlan CJ).

[27] Chokolich [60] - [73] (Quinlan CJ) (references omitted).

[31] CLMI Act, s 51(c), s 73(1)(d)(iii).