1. A supervised treatment order is made.
2. The Authorised Program Officer (the APO) for the primary service provider is responsible for implementing the supervised treatment order.
3. XSN shall reside in an SDA enrolled dwelling as an SDA resident under and SDA residency agreement.
4. The treatment plan referred to in this order is attached and varied in accord with the track changes about the following matters, to be made by the APO and uploaded to the common platform (RIDS) and sent to XSN's legal representative by 2 July 2025 (except in the case of the easy read version which will be uploaded and sent by 16 July 2025):

(a) Include an easy read version of the treatment plan and of the step-downs (to be developed by a treating occupational therapist);

(b) Refine the step-downs for community access, to progressively reduce the degree of control which is exercised by workers supervising XSN;

(c) Alter the step-downs for community access so as to move more quickly to 1 on 1 supervision and to add opportunities for periods of independence in accessing the community;

(d) Include step-downs of the supervision exercised within the home;

(e) Collect data to record when XSN chooses to have staff with him;

(f)

Increase the data collected about near misses of behaviours of concern and instances where de-escalation has been needed;

Include a review of XSN's mental health and provide information for staff to use in observing and managing any possible symptoms of mental illness

1. This supervised treatment order shall continue in force for the period of 9 months.
2. XSN shall participate in treatment specified in the treatment plan or in treatment specified in the supervised treatment order.
3. VCAT notes the APO's obligations under s 196A to notify parties whether they intend to apply for another supervised treatment order no less than 60 days before the expiry of this supervised treatment order. If the APO does intend to apply for another supervised treatment order, any application for another supervised treatment order:

(a) must be made by the Authorised Program Officer no later than 11 February 2026; and

(b) will be listed for hearing on 25 February 2026.

These orders have been made because VCAT is satisfied that:

1. The Authorised Program Officer for XSN has applied for a supervised treatment order.
2. XSN :

(a) has an intellectual disability;

(b) is residing in an SDA enrolled dwelling as an SDA resident under an SDA residency agreement;

(c) has a treatment plan prepared under section 189 and approved by the Senior Practitioner; and

(d) meets the criteria set out in section 193(1A), being that:

• he has previously exhibited a pattern of violent or dangerous behaviour causing serious harm to another person or exposing another person to a significant risk of serious harm;
• there is a significant risk of serious harm to another person which cannot be substantially reduced by using less restrictive means;
• the services to be provided to him in accordance with the treatment plan will be of benefit to the person and substantially reduce the significant risk of serious harm to another person;
• he is unable or unwilling to consent to voluntarily complying with the treatment plan to substantially reduce the significant risk of serious harm to another person; and
• it is necessary to detain him to ensure compliance with the treatment plan and prevent a significant risk of serious harm to another person.

(a) specifies the treatment that will be provided to him/ during the period of the supervised treatment order;

(b)

states the expected benefit of the treatment to him;

specifies any restrictive practices that will be used;

sets out the details of each disability service provider and registered NDIS provider that will be providing services to him and the nature of those services;

states the level of supervision which will be required to ensure he participates in the treatment;

sets out a proposed process for transition of him to lower levels of supervision, and if appropriate, to living in the community without a supervised treatment order.

1. The supervised treatment order and any variation to the treatment plan can be implemented by the registered NDIS provider.
2. Some or all of the material referred to in section 193(2B) has been considered.
3. In respect of an NDIS participant who will be subject to the use of restrictive practices by a registered NDIS provider under a treatment plan attached to the supervised treatment order that is to be used as the NDIS participant's NDIS behaviour support plan, VCAT has not varied the treatment plan of the NDIS participant:

(a) with respect to any regulated restrictive practices; or

(b) in such a manner that the treatment plan would not be able to be implemented.

1. XSN is a 44-year-old man. To protect his private information, he is referred to here as XSN. When anyone explains these reasons to him, they should read in his first name where I have written XSN.
2. On 18 June 2025 I heard an application by the authorised program officer (APO) from MYXA (a service provider) about XSN. The application was for a supervised treatment order about XSN, and I made that order. XSN's lawyer asked on XSN's behalf for written reasons for my decision. The reasons are set out below. They are the same as the reasons I gave orally at the hearing, except that I have set out here the details of the evidence and the relevant legislation, which I only referred to briefly at the hearing, since everyone was familiar with the statute and the evidence.
3. XSN himself attended the hearing and was represented by a lawyer. XSN's brother attended. The APO was also there with the psychologist who conducted a risk assessment of XSN. XSN's specialist support coordinator for his NDIS supports was there, as was a representative from the office of the Senior Practitioner.

1. Supervised Treatment Orders (STOs) are made under division 5 of Part 8 of the Disability Act 2006 (Vic) (the DA). Section 183 sets out the purpose of that division:

The purpose of this Division is to provide for the making of a civil order, a supervised treatment order, to enable the detention by a disability service provider or a registered NDIS provider of a person with an intellectual disability who poses a significant risk of serious harm to others.

1. VCAT only makes an STO about a person when an authorised program officer or registered NDIS provider applies for one.[1] Application for an STO can be made about a person who has an intellectual disability, and who is residing in a place where they receive services, and who has a treatment plan approved by the Senior Practitioner under the DA.[2] The APO applies on the basis that they consider the person meets the criteria in section 193(1A) of the DA.[3]
2. VCAT can only make an STO if a person meets all the criteria listed in section 193(1A) which are as follows:

(a) the person has previously exhibited a pattern of violent or dangerous behaviour causing serious harm to another person or exposing another person to a significant risk of serious harm; and

(b) there is a significant risk of serious harm to another person which cannot be substantially reduced by using less restrictive means; and

(c) the services to be provided to the person in accordance with the treatment plan will be of benefit to the person and substantially reduce the significant risk of serious harm to another person; and

(d) the person is unable or unwilling to consent to voluntarily complying with a treatment plan to substantially reduce the significant risk of serious harm to another person; and

(e) it is necessary to detain the person to ensure compliance with the treatment plan and prevent a significant risk of serious harm to another person.

1. The treatment plan for the person is attached to the STO and as specified in section 189(1) must include provisions that:

(a) specify the treatment that will be provided to the person during the period of the supervised treatment order; and

(b) state the expected benefit to the person of the treatment; and

...

(d) set out the details of each disability service provider and registered NDIS provider that will be providing services to the person and the nature of those services; and

(e) state the level of supervision which will be required to ensure that the person participates in the treatment; and

(f) set out a proposed process for the transition of the person to lower levels of supervision and, if appropriate, to living in the community without a supervised treatment order being required.

1. There have been STOs made about XSN since 2017 and consistently since 2020, there has been such an order in place. An STO can only last for a maximum of one year (section 196(3)(d)) but there is no limit to the number of STOs which can be made about a person, if the criteria set out in the DA apply to the person.
2. XSN has a diagnosis of moderate intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder and foetal alcohol syndrome. He also has a schizo-affective psychotic condition. According to the brief history provided in the treatment plan, in 2001, XSN moved from his family home to supported disability accommodation due to his behaviours of concern. A risk assessment in 2018 recorded that he 'has engaged in violent behaviours since early childhood, and these had been mainly directed at family members'.
3. XSN currently lives on his own in dedicated specialist disability accommodation (SDA) in regional Victoria. XSN has assistance from direct support workers from MYXA for 24 hours per day. There are always two workers with him during the day and one at night.
4. In 2016 and 2017, XSN was charged with several violent offences and in 2017 was first placed on an STO. In 2020 he moved into his current purpose-built home. The treatment plan says that since then staff have taken a trauma informed approach to supporting XSN and focussed on building relationships of trust to show XSN that staff are there to help and support him and this has had a positive effect on XSN. No one at the hearing disagreed with that evidence. At the hearing, XSN, his carers and the practitioners were all proud of XSN's progress.
5. In this case, XSN's lawyer contended on XSN's behalf that two of the criteria for making an order do not apply to him. XSN would like to be free of STOs. He told his lawyer he likes his support workers and wants them to accompany him when he goes out into the community. XSN does not run away even though the doors at his home are now unlocked. XSN recently had a holiday, saw his family and all went well. He is getting ready for life without an STO. XSN's lawyer said this shows that XSN does not meet the criteria for non-consent and for needing to be detained under (d) and (e).
6. I will address each of the criteria in turn with special attention to those which were contested on XSN's behalf.

CRITERIA IN SECTION 191

1. As set out in the orders made on 18 June 2025, I was satisfied that XSN has an intellectual disability, is residing in an SDA enrolled dwelling as an SDA resident under an SDA residency agreement and has a treatment plan prepared under section 189, which is approved by the Senior Practitioner.
2. In relation to the Senior Practitioner's approval of the treatment plan, I note that the Senior Practitioner has provided a certificate of approval and makes comments relevant to XSN's progress. It notes that XSN has made significant progress in several areas: improvement in his overall physical health, increased community-based activities and focussing on healthier eating habits, as well as visiting family regularly, with the support of staff, and going on a holiday. During the period of the last STO, the use of locked external doors has ceased following the implementation of step downs about this practice.

SECTION 193(1A) (A) - A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR

1. Section 193(1A)(a) says VCAT can only make a STO if satisfied that:

(a) the person has previously exhibited a pattern of violent or dangerous behaviour causing serious harm to another person or exposing another person to a significant risk of serious harm;

1. There was no dispute that this applies to XSN, given his history of offences in 2016 and 2017. There is no need to go over that material since there was no dispute that this criterion applies.

SECTION 193 (1A)(B) - SIGNIFICANT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM

(b) there is a significant risk of serious harm to another person which cannot be substantially reduced by using less restrictive means;

1. The risk assessment submitted with the application was dated 4 June 2025. It was carried out by a psychologist from Code Black, who also assessed XSN in June 2024 and attended the hearing. The risk assessment is detailed. It sets out the sources of information including direct assessment of XSN himself, interviews with his treating team, carers and support workers, letters from medical practitioners, incident report summary data, the previous treatment plan and accompanying certificate from the Senior Practitioner and professional resources.
2. Most significantly the assessment includes many recommendations for XSN's treatment, and these were considered in the discussion of the treatment plan at the hearing.
3. Relevantly for the question of whether paragraph (b) applies to XSN, the assessor expresses the view that XSN continues to pose a moderate to high risk of violence to others and that the supervision XSN receives under the STO manages the risk of violence to the community but if that was removed, the risk to the community would be high.[4]
4. The assessor's report notes there have been no incidents of violence in the community for over three years and no physical violence to support staff in the last 12 months. All the stakeholders interviewed attested to XSN's inability to self-regulate and need for constant daily reassurance, redirection, and cognitive reframing to prevent him from becoming distressed and subsequently aggressive. This is provided by the support staff under the treatment order. There was no dispute that paragraph (b) applies to XSN.

SECTION 193 (1A)(C) - SERVICES OF BENEFIT

(c) the services to be provided to the person in accordance with the treatment plan will be of benefit to the person and substantially reduce the significant risk of serious harm to another person;

1. There was no dispute about this. XSN's lawyer was able to relate that XSN is pleased with his own progress in being able to engage in activities without incident. Further, XSN's behaviour support practitioner reported that he is enjoying swimming and cooking classes.
2. The data summarised in the risk assessment indicates, as the assessor said, that XSN's incidents of aggression are trending down. However, the assessor expressed the view that the reduction in incidents is mostly due to the effective intervention by support staff and the development of trust with support staff. All this indicates that the services under the treatment plan are of benefit to XSN and reduce the risk he poses to others. There was no dispute about this criterion.

SECTION 193 (1A)(D) - UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO CONSENT TO SERVICES

(d) the person is unable or unwilling to consent to voluntarily complying with a treatment plan to substantially reduce the significant risk of serious harm to another person;

1. XSN's lawyer submitted that XSN consents to the treatment in the plan so does not satisfy this criterion. He pointed out that XSN does not run away now that the doors to his home are unlocked, that he likes to have his support workers with him, inviting them to come with him when he goes out, and that he does chores at home such as setting the table, including with knives, even though his access to sharps is restricted. The lawyer submitted it is unnecessary to lock away sharps from XSN.
2. Overall, XSN's lawyer submitted that XSN has shown a significant degree of cooperation with the treatment plan, that when upset he responds to de-escalation and that he chooses to cooperate with his workers.
3. In response to those submissions, the psychologist who conducted the risk assessment said at the hearing that it is hard to take XSN's word that he consents to the treatment plan, because he sometimes accepts having the staff with him and sometimes does not. The assessor referred to her written assessment containing detail of the staff reports and her own interviews with XSN. Sometimes, the assessor reported,[5] XSN says he wants staff to support him and would be scared without them and in other moments he expresses a desire to live alone.
4. The assessor was inclined to believe XSN will continue to accept staff support, given his fear of abandonment and dependence on staff, but added she could not say this with any level of certainty given there is no evidence yet of testing how XSN goes with independent community access and reduced staff supervision. The assessor suggested in the report[6] that the step downs in the treatment plan should be carried out so staff could collect data for assessing how XSN would cope with the possibility of freedom of movement.
5. The assessor at the hearing expressed the view that XSN needs the support of close supervision, whether he wants it or not.
6. The assessor suggested further that XSN needs to be taught some behavioural strategies for how to manage in situations of reduced supervision. The assessor suggested this can be developed by the behaviour support practitioner working with XSN.
7. At the hearing, I asked the behaviour support practitioner about this. She described activities she undertakes with XSN and noted that he has learned to work with female support workers, which was difficult for him previously.
8. When I asked specifically whether XSN is developing strategies for managing himself in the community, the behaviour support practitioner said that so far XSN had only been called upon to make small choices in that context.
9. The APO agreed that XSN's self-management and ability to self-regulate has not been tested in the community. Her view was that his should occur during step downs before the STO was removed, leaving XSN to voluntarily accept support and supervision.
10. I accepted that view. I found insufficient evidence to indicate XSN can and will consent to voluntarily complying with the treatment plan in the absence of an STO. The criterion in paragraph (d) continues to apply to him in my view.
11. However, the APO and the Senior Practitioner's representative recognised that XSN has made progress. Much of the last half of the hearing was spent discussing ways to ensure that XSN has opportunities to test his capacity to develop strategies for self-regulation both at home and in the community, so he is ready when he has the opportunity to be more independent.

SECTION 193 (1A)(E) - NECESSARY TO DETAIN THE PERSON

(e) it is necessary to detain the person to ensure compliance with the treatment plan and prevent a significant risk of serious harm to another person.

1. The definition of "detain" for part 8 of the DA is important here. The definition appears in section 3 of the DA. It says:

detain, in Part 8, means a form of restrictive practice used on a person for the purpose of reducing the risk of violence or the significant risk of serious harm the person presents to another person and includes -

(a) physically locking a person in any premises; and

(b) constantly supervising or escorting a person to prevent the person from exercising freedom of movement;

1. XSN's lawyer submitted that XSN does not meet the criterion in section 193(1A)(e). He pointed out that XSN has completed the step downs for locked doors and not absconded now that the doors are unlocked. He suggested there has been a sustained absence of aggressive behaviour, given the risk assessor's report refers to a significant decrease in the frequency of incidents with staff compared to last year (23) and three years absence of incidents in the community.
2. Further, he suggested that XSN does not need supervision to reduce the risk he poses to others in the community because he needs the staff presence for support because of his disabilities, and that incidentally reduces risk. XSN's lawyer said XSN would seek that level of support in the absence of an STO, so that this supervision does not amount to detention.
3. In response, the Senior Practitioner's representative agreed that it can be difficult to identify the difference between supervision needs and support needs in some cases. He suggested a functional capacity assessment of XSN would help identify how support needs and supervision needs may differ. He said the Senior Practitioner does not support removal of the STO on those grounds at this stage and would be concerned XSN was being unlawfully detained if the order was removed and supervision remains as it currently stands.
4. I agree that it is hard to decide to what extent XSN needs support because of his disability and to what extent he needs support as supervision to manage the risk he poses. I accept that a functional capacity assessment may demonstrate the reasons why XSN's supports are required. At this point in the hearing the APO pointed out that a functional capacity assessment is currently being conducted by an occupational therapist.
5. I was persuaded that further assessment is needed to truly demonstrate that the support XSN needs for his disability is sufficient to incidentally provide the supervision needed because of the risk he poses.
6. Further, I noted the risk assessor's view[7] that the downward trend in XSN's incidents of aggression was mostly due to the effective intervention by support staff and the development of trust and safety with support staff. This suggests that the question of why XSN needs support is particularly important in deciding whether the supervision (which otherwise amounts to detention as defined) is necessary to prevent a significant risk of serious harm to others. If it is, then XSN meets the criterion in paragraph (e). At present that is the only finding open to me as there is insufficient evidence to show that the current level of support is necessary to meet XSN's disability support needs.
7. Accordingly, I found that all the criteria in section 193(1A) of the DA apply to XSN, so that an STO could be made if the other relevant requirements in the DA are satisfied.

1. XSN's lawyer suggested that VCAT should make a shorter order, for only six months, because of XSN's progress. The APO agreed arrangements could be made for XSN's treatment to occur over a shorter period and said that nine months was an appropriate length for an order. I was satisfied the treatment outlined could be varied to cover only nine months, noting that a functional capacity assessment is currently underway.
2. A number of other issues were addressed at the hearing, leading to the direction that the treatment plan was to be varied from that submitted with the application. These matters are listed in paragraphs (a) to (f) of order 4.
3. Paragraph (a) of order 4 requires an easy read version of the plan and step downs to be developed by the occupational therapist (who I was told knows XSN). This arose from discussion in the hearing of how to increase XSN's sense of control of his situation, as recommended in the assessor's report at paragraph 76.
4. Paragraph (b) of order 4 requires refinement of the step downs to reduce progressively the degree of control exercised by workers in the community. This responds to the recommendations in paragraph 62 of the assessment for a focus on implementing a significant reduction in supervision.
5. Paragraph (c) of order 4 requires alteration of the step downs to move more quickly to one-on-one supervision in the community, and to add opportunities for independent community access, as recommended in paragraph 62 of the assessment.
6. Paragraph (d) of order 4 requires variations to allow for step downs of supervision within XSN's home. This recommendation appears in paragraph 63 of the assessment, which also makes recommendations about ensuring protective factors in that environment remain stable and assessing dynamic risk.
7. Paragraph (e) of order 4 requires variation to the treatment plan to collect data about instances when XSN chooses have staff with him, because this may be relevant to assessing the degree to which he consents to treatment and also is important in evaluating his risk in future, as described in paragraph 64 of the assessment.
8. Paragraph (f) of order 4 requires the treatment plan include collection of data about 'near misses' where, as suggested in the assessment at paragraph 65, instances of verbal aggression do not escalate to physical violence due to effective staff intervention.
9. Paragraph (g) of order 4 addresses the therapeutic recommendations in the assessment, at paragraph 79, that XSN be reviewed by his psychiatrist to ensure his psychotic illness and medication efficacy is adequately managed and to provide his carers and support staff with an understanding of these issues so that prompt intervention can be sought if this is required.

1. As I have said, I was satisfied that all the criteria in section 193(1A) apply to XSN. Further, I was satisfied that the level of detail in the treatment plan meets the requirements of section 189(1), including requirement for progress towards lower levels of supervision.
2. Following this useful constructive and focussed discussion of XSN's needs and the aims of the treatment plan, I was satisfied as required by section 193(2) that MYXA, the disability service provider, ably represented by the APO, would be able to implement the STO and the varied treatment plan.
3. As set out in section 193(2B), I considered the evidence given at the hearing, the Senior Practitioner's certificate, the evidence set out in the treatment plan (which summarises some material from previous hearings) and the risk assessment discussed above.

[1] Disability Act 2006 (Vic) section 191(1).

[2] As provided in section 191(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[3] As provided in section 191(1)(d).

[4] Code Black risk assessment 4 June 2025 paragraph 37.

[5] Code Black risk assessment 4 June 2025 paragraph 59.

[7] Code Black risk assessment 4 June 2025 at paragraph 58.