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

Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999; ss 30, 34, 35, 37.

Sentencing Act 1997; s 75.

Separate representative - Toby McGregor, Tasmania Legal Aid

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

Amended pursuant to s119 of the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2020

Clerical error, correction of dates in paragraph 3 and 10

1. UNG is a 41 year old man who resides in rented accommodation in [a Tasmanian town] where he lives alone. He is in receipt of a disability support pension.
2. UNG is the subject of two supervision orders dated 20 January 2009 and 15 March 2014, made under s 75 of the Sentencing Act 1997.
3. On the 22 February 2007 UNG was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Tasmania to two counts of robbery, two counts of attempted robbery, and one count of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas). In respect of these crimes UNG was sentenced to five years imprisonment and it was ordered he not be eligible for parole until he had served three years of that sentence. The Court ordered that upon his release from prison he be under the supervision of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist (the CFP) subject to conditions that he take such medication and submit to the administration of such medical treatment as determined by the CFP and comply with any directions as to supervision given by the CFP (the first supervision order).
4. The first supervision order was reviewed by the Mental Health Tribunal on 16 December 2009; 15 December 2010; 14 December 2011 and 6 November 2013 and determined the order was still warranted and the conditions remained appropriate. The Mental Health Tribunal reviewed the supervision order on 7 December 2012 when it was determined the order was no longer warranted and a certificate should issue to UNG allowing him to apply to the Supreme Court of Tasmania to have the supervision order revoked.
5. On 14 August 2014 UNG was convicted in the Supreme Court of Tasmania to one count of robbery contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas). UNG was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and it was ordered he not be eligible to apply for parole until he has served 15 months of his sentence. The Court ordered that upon his release from prison he be released under the supervision of the CFP subject to conditions that he take such medication and submit to the administration of such medical treatment as determined by the CFP and comply with any directions as to supervision given by the CFP, including directions as to his place of residence and directions requiring that he not leave or stay outside Tasmania without the permission of the CFP (the second supervision order).
6. Since the imposition of the second supervision order, the two supervision orders have been reviewed by the Mental Health Tribunal on 14 March 2017; 13 March 2018; 13 March 2019; 11 March 2020 and 30 March 2021, and by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 14 April 2022. At each review hearing, it was determined the supervision orders were still warranted and the conditions remained appropriate.
7. On 31 March 2023 and again on 14 March 2024, the two supervision orders were reviewed by the Tribunal. On both dates, the Tribunal determined the supervision orders were no longer warranted and issued a certificate. The Tribunal noted UNG may apply to the Supreme Court in Tasmania to have the supervision order revoked, recommending its revocation and a treatment order being made.
8. UNG has taken no action to apply to the Supreme Court to have the supervision orders revoked.
9. On 13 March 2025, the two supervision orders were before the Tribunal for review. UNG did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal adjourned the proceeding and appointed a separate representative for UNG.
10. On 9 April 2025 the Tribunal conducted a review of the supervision orders and after hearing evidence determined to issue a certificate.

1. The hearing was conducted in Hobart with Dr TB, Statewide Director of Forensic Mental Health Services in Tasmania (FMHS), DT, Clinical Lead of Community FMHS in the [area], appearing by video link, and Toby MacGregor, separate representative for UNG from Tasmania Legal Aid attending in person. UNG did not attend the hearing.

1. The Tribunal's power to review a supervision order is in s 37 of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999 (the Act):

37. Review of persons detained under forensic orders > > (1) A forensic order is to be reviewed under the Mental Health Act 2013 by the Tribunal within 12 months after the order was made and at least once in each period of 12 months afterwards. > > (2) In reviewing a forensic order, the Tribunal is to apply the principal in section 34 and have regards to the matters set out in section 35(1). > > (3) If the Tribunal, on review, determines that a forensic order is no longer warranted or that the conditions of the order are now inappropriate-

(a) the Tribunal must issue the defendant with a certificate to that effect; and

(b) the defendant may apply immediately, despite any other provisions of this Act, to the Supreme Court for discharge, revocation or variation of the forensic order.

(4) If the Tribunal issues a certificate in respect of the discharge of a restriction order, the certificate may include the recommendation of the Tribunal that, should the order be discharged-

(a) a supervision order or treatment order be made in respect of the defendant; or

(b) the defendant be released either unconditionally or on the conditions specified in the recommendation.

(5) If the Tribunal issues a certificate in respect of the revocations of a supervision order, the certificate may include the recommendation of the Tribunal that, should the order be revoked-

(a) a treatment order be made in respect of the defendant; or

(b) the defendant be released either unconditionally or on the conditions specified in the recommendation.

(6) If the Tribunal, on review, issues a certificate in respect of the variation of the conditions of a supervision order, the certificate may include the recommendations of the Tribunal as to what conditions should be included in the order.

(7) If the Tribunal, on review, determines that a supervision order should be revoked and that, instead, a restriction order should be made in respect of the defendant, the Tribunal is to-

(a) recommend to the Secretary of the responsible Department in relation to the Mental Health Act 2013 that he or she make an application under section 30(1) for the revocation of the supervision order and the making of the restriction order; and

(b) provide a copy of that recommendation to the defendant.

1. In determining proceedings under Division 6 of the Act, the Tribunal is to apply the principle set out in s 34, namely, the principle that restrictions on the defendant's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community and have regard to the matters set out in s 35(1) which are as follows:

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

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

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

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

(e) other matters that the Tribunal thinks relevant.

1. Dr TB filed a report with the Tribunal dated 6 March 2025, and gave oral evidence at hearing. Dr TB confirmed he had read the report from Dr SE dated 12 March 2024, indicating he accepted its contents and noting that little had changed since the date of that report.

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

[UNG] has a well-established diagnosis of schizophrenia, which is well treated with depot paliperidone. He has not exhibited overt positive psychotic symptoms during the review period but does present with negative symptoms. He has comorbid antisocial traits, which have not been recently problematic, and a history of substance use, which has not been problematic for many years. He has borderline intellectual functioning.

2. At hearing Dr TB confirmed UNG's intellectual functioning has been assessed twice, in 2002 and 2017.
3. By way of background, Dr TB stated UNG has suffered from psychosis since his late teens, and reported he started hearing voices at the age of 16 years. His first admission to hospital in Tasmania was in 2002 when he was diagnosed with drug-induced psychosis. In 2004 UNG was admitted to a secure hospital in Queensland on two occasions. UNG was briefly admitted to a hospital in Tasmania in late 2005. He was remanded in custody in early 2006, he spent one month in Risdon Prison Hospital in 2007 and spent almost 2 years in the Wilfred Lopes Centre (WLC) until January 2009. Dr TB stated UNG is well known to FMHS in Tasmania.
4. Dr TB stated he conducted an assessment of UNG by video link on 6 March 2025, where he did not present as dysphoric or depressed, was reactive, not expressing any delusional content or positive psychotic symptoms or exhibiting formal thought disorder.
5. Dr TB indicated that UNG generally does not accept he has a mental illness.
6. Based on the medical evidence before us, we find UNG has a mental impairment, namely schizophrenia and has a borderline intellectual disability.

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

1. Dr TB stated UNG has not offended since 2017, and there has been no breaches of the supervision order since 2017. There has been no need to detain UNG in the WLC for many years. Dr TB noted UNG was in remission in respect of substance use.
2. In his report Dr TB sates:

There have been no concerns over the review period, following the trajectory in [UNG's] supervision over recent years. He has remained compliant with treatment, there has been no evidence of psychotic destabilisation, and there have otherwise been no issues in relation to his forensic supervision. > > [UNG's] risk profile remains unchanged from Dr [DE's] assessment in last year's review. > > ... > > As Dr [DE] noted, there has been indirect relationship between his psychosis and most of his violence, with little evidence of direct symptom drive, although disinhibition and instability due to deterioration in mental health has been relevant. The main risk in his case would be of physical violence in the context of an unstable lifestyle and/or unstable mental state, leading to him using aggression to get what he wants or reacting to limits being placed on him, however, with the current management he poses a low risk of serious harm and does not pose an imminent risk.

3. Dr TB stated UNG would meet the treatment criteria under s 40 of the Act and could get ongoing treatment, monitoring supervision and support as he is currently receiving under the supervision order.
4. DT agreed that UNG poses a low risk of harm to others and since March 2016 has been managing in the community. DT commented that UNG's risks are well mitigated with the current treatment. DT stated UNG lives a reclusive lifestyle, choosing to have limited engagement with others, and not wanting to apply to be a participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. He has ongoing contact with his sister, who lives nearby.
5. Based on all the evidence, we find that if UNG is released from the supervision order he is not likely to endanger another person or other persons generally. His personal circumstances have been stable for numerous years. There have been no concerns about UNG's mental state, behaviour, treatment or compliance with conditions of his supervision orders over the last year, and for numerous years.

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

There are adequate resources available for UNG's treatment and support in the community, the efficacy of which has been demonstrated through a prolonged period of stability with a relatively low level of service under the CFMHS [Community Mental Health Service].

2. Dr TB confirmed that with ongoing compliance with treatment and support from the CFMHS, and abstinence from drug use, it is unlikely that UNG's management would be any different if he was on a treatment order, than a supervision order. Dr TB noted that if UNG was on a treatment order, this would not preclude UNG from being managed under the CFMHS initially, and then at some later stage being transferred to the Adult Community Mental Health Service.
3. DT stated she sees UNG monthly, to administer his depot medication, which he is compliant with. DT noted UNG is usually outside waiting for her when she arrives.
4. The Tribunal finds there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of UNG, in the community.

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

1. The evidence of Dr TB and DT is that UNG has been compliant with the conditions of the supervision order since 2017, and there is no evidence at this time that this is likely to change.
2. Mr McGregor stated when he met with UNG, UNG indicated he would accept what Dr TB said in respect of his treatment and would comply with the order, whether it be a supervision order or a treatment order and any conditions imposed on him.
3. Based on the evidence we find UNG is likely to comply with the conditions of a supervision order.

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

1. Dr TB's recommendation is that UNG be discharged from the supervision order and placed on a treatment order.
2. Mr McGregor submitted that the supervision orders are no longer warranted and recommended the Tribunal issue a certificate.

1. Applying the principle in s 34 of the Act and having regard to the matters in s 35(1)(a) to (e) inclusive of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the supervision orders are no longer warranted and a certificate should be issued in respect of the revocation of the supervision orders. The Tribunal recommends should the supervision orders be revoked, a treatment order be made in respect of UNG.