Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Regulations 2024

The Regulations revolve around several recurring legal and administrative concepts that give practical effect to the Act’s procedural architecture:

• Communication partner and ground rules hearing (r 4). The Regulations implement Act s 21 by permitting appointment of a communication partner either on the court/Tribunal’s own motion or by application from a specified list (accused, representative, legal practitioner, DPP, police officer). The court or Tribunal may hold a “ground rules hearing” to make orders about the accused’s communication and support needs and about the communication partner. Attendance by the communication partner at that hearing is mandatory unless the court or Tribunal orders otherwise (r 4(2)-(3)).

• Prescribed report content (r 5). Where the Act refers to information to be included in mental state reports, the Regulations require explicit description of the nature of any risk the person presents to themself or the community, and the qualifications and expertise of the person preparing the report (r 5(a)-(b)).

• Prescribed information flows to oversight and advocacy bodies (rr 6, 7, 14, 21). The Regulations list specific personal identifiers and contextual items,name, contact details, DOB, gender, ethnicity, language, disability status, guardian/administrator details, next of kin, custody/supervision order documents and written reasons, and pre‑disposition or other reports,that courts and the Tribunal must give the Chief Mental Health Advocate and the Public Advocate in specified circumstances (for example, adjournment, order made) (r 6(1), r 7(2), r 14).

• Notification classes for breaches (rr 9-10). The Regulations designate classes of persons required to notify the Tribunal of breaches: police officers and DSC declared place directors/managers for leave‑of‑absence breaches (r 9); and police officers and health professionals for community supervision order breaches (r 10).

• Transcript and written reasons obligations (rr 17-19). A court that makes a supervision order must provide a full transcript to the Tribunal where available, and otherwise provide written reasons or a judicially prepared summary as soon as practicable. The Chief Mental Health Advocate and Public Advocate have parallel request powers for transcripts or the Tribunal’s file (rr 17-19).

• Authentication and electronic case management (r 15). Tribunal orders are authenticated if signed by Tribunal members or Registrar, signed and sealed by staff, or recorded and confirmed in the ECMS by specified Tribunal personnel, providing explicit validation modes for digital records.

• Victim disclosure limits and child‑specific considerations (r 13). The Regulations enumerate the kinds of information that may be disclosed to victims in relation to supervised persons (both custody and CSO), and contain a specific rule that photograph disclosure is conditional on not giving a copy. For supervised persons who are children, the CEO must consider child‑specific matters under Act s 10(a) and (f) before disclosure (r 13(3)-(4)).

• Arrest warrant form and content (Schedule 1). The Schedule prescribes the form of an arrest warrant for supervised persons, the authorities to be served, fields for disability and guardianship status, reasons for issue mapped to Act provisions (for example, cancelled leave, alleged breach of CSO), and execution particulars (Schedule 1).

These concepts combine to create an administrative topology around courtroom decisions about persons with mental impairment: who helps communication, what evidence and credentials must be documented, which institutions must be informed and when, how records are authenticated and transmitted, and what victims and advocates can be told.

The Regulations distribute duties across a defined set of public actors and private parties in the criminal justice and mental health systems. Named groups and the directions that apply to them include:

• Courts and the Tribunal. They must appoint communication partners, hold ground rules hearings (r 4), provide transcripts or written reasons to the Tribunal and Chief Mental Health Advocate (rr 17-18), give prescribed information to the Tribunal, Chief Mental Health Advocate and Public Advocate after orders and adjournments (rr 6-7, 14, 21), and authenticate orders per r 15.

• Accused persons and supervised persons. Their identifying and contextual data are central to prescribed disclosure obligations (rr 6, 7, 13, 14). Where the person is a child, additional considerations apply (r 7(1)(f), r 13(3)). Supervised persons may be photographed and that photograph may be disclosed to victims subject to the no‑copy condition (r 13(1)(h), r 13(2)(g)-(h), r 13(4)).

• Defence representatives, legal practitioners, and communication partners. Legal representatives may apply for appointment of a communication partner and must be prepared to work with ground rules orders; communication partners must attend ground rules hearings unless excused (r 4(1)(b), r 4(3)).

• Prosecution and police. The DPP and police officers are among those who may apply for a communication partner (r 4(1)(b)(iv)-(v)). Police officers are also classes of notifier for breaches of leave or CSO conditions (rr 9-10), and are addressees/executors of the prescribed arrest warrant in Schedule 1 (r 20). Police will be required to receive and act on Tribunal warrants issued for specified statutory reasons and to provide execution particulars.

• Health professionals and institutions. Health professionals are required not only to supply reports in accordance with r 5, but health professionals constitute a notifier class for CSO breaches (r 10). Hospitals, treating psychiatrists and treating practitioners and community treatment order personnel are prescribed recipients of copies of orders and written reasons when the supervised person is a patient or under a community treatment order (r 8(2)(g)-(h)).

• Public Advocate, Chief Mental Health Advocate, Chief Psychiatrist, Public Trustee, CEOs. The Public Advocate and Chief Mental Health Advocate have specifically enumerated entitlements to information (rr 6, 7, 14, 21). The Chief Psychiatrist and treating psychiatrists are prescribed recipients under r 8 where the supervised person is a patient. The Public Trustee and other administrators are referenced in r 7(2)(i).

• Correctional services and community corrections. The CEO (Corrections), CEO (Young Offenders), and community corrections centres are implicated: r 8 prescribes correctional CEOs as recipients of order copies; r 13 prescribes disclosure of region/city where detained or reporting CSO community corrections centre (r 13(1)(c), r 13(2)(c)).

• Disability Services Commission (DSC) declared places. Directors/managers of DSC declared places are notif ier classes for leave breaches (r 9) and where supervised persons are detained in DSC declared places, the DSC chief executive is a recipient of order copies (r 8(2)(f)).

Financial and administrative burdens fall primarily on public agencies: courts and Tribunal resourcing to provide transcripts, registrars/ECMS administration (r 15(d)), advocacy offices processing incoming notices and requests, correctional and health services supplying custody location and program descriptions, and police executing warrants and providing breach notifications. Defence and prosecution actors are affected in relation to communication partner applications and participation in ground rules hearings.

The Regulations establish a series of prescriptive duties and corresponding entitlements or rights of access. The main ones are listed with their immediate operational effect and statutory cross‑reference.

• Power to appoint a communication partner (r 4). Duty/right: courts and the Tribunal may appoint a communication partner either of their own motion or on application by an enumerated list (accused, representative, legal practitioner, DPP, police). The ground rules hearing power (r 4(2)) gives courts and the Tribunal a discrete procedural tool to manage communication needs and the role of the communication partner; the communication partner must attend unless excused (r 4(3)). This gives courts and the Tribunal discretion over who will assist the accused’s communication during proceedings, and creates a procedural duty to hold a hearing where necessary.

• Content duties in reports (r 5). Duty: evaluative reports under Act s 23(d) must include the nature of risk posed by the person and the qualifications/expertise of the report author. This is a document‑level compliance duty that attaches to report preparers and, indirectly, to entities that commission such reports.

• Notice to Chief Mental Health Advocate on adjournment (r 6). Duty: when proceedings are adjourned the court must give the Chief Mental Health Advocate specified identifying and case details (r 6(1)(a)-(k)). The Regulation also qualifies that information not known to the court need not be given (r 6(2)). This establishes an entitlement for the Chief Mental Health Advocate to be notified and a corresponding duty on courts to transmit particular data.

• Information to Tribunal and Chief Mental Health Advocate after order (r 7). Duty: the court must forward to the Tribunal the prosecution notice/indictment, criminal record (if tendered), pre‑disposition and other s 23 reports, and written reasons for custody/CSO orders (r 7(1)); to the Chief Mental Health Advocate it must provide detailed personal data and written reasons (r 7(2)). The duty is bound to the court’s knowledge cap (r 7(3)).

• Recipients of copies of an order and reasons (r 8). Duty: on an order under s 73, specified persons must be given copies, including Commissioner of Police, Chief Mental Health Advocate, CEO, CEO (Corrections), relevant CEOs for children, DSC where detained, Chief Psychiatrist and treating clinicians and community treatment order personnel as applicable (r 8(2)(a)-(h)). The Regulation prescribes who receives procedural documents, creating obligations for Tribunal administration.

• Notifiers of breaches (rr 9-10). Duty: police and DSC declared place managers must notify the Tribunal of leave‑of‑absence order breaches (r 9); police and health professionals must notify on CSO breaches (r 10). That duty allocates on‑the‑ground surveillance and reporting responsibilities to operational personnel.

• Tribunal’s duty to provide detail to court (r 11). Duty: if the Tribunal decides to make an application to court for suspected CSO breach, it must provide defined details including suspected breach particulars, review date, information considered in review and reasonable suspicion, and warrant‑related information (r 11(a)-(e)). This creates a record requirement to justify escalation to court.

• Court’s duty post‑order (r 12). Duty: after an interim/extended order or CSO is made under Part 7, the court must supply any s 23 reports considered and written reasons to the Tribunal (r 12).

• Victim disclosure rights (r 13). Right: victims may receive prescribed information about the supervised person’s custody or community supervision order, location at a regional/suburb level, leave details, escape/recapture notifications, death/hospice, treatment program descriptions and a photograph (r 13(1)-(2)). Limits and conditions: child cases trigger Act s 10(a) and (f) child considerations (r 13(3)); photograph disclosure is conditional on not providing a copy (r 13(4)).

• Public Advocate and Chief Mental Health Advocate access (r 14). Duty: the Tribunal must notify the Public Advocate of a defined set of personal and case documents when a custody order, CSO or interim disposition is made (r 14(a)-(l)).

• Authentication methods (r 15). Duty/right: Tribunal orders are authenticated if signed by prescribed persons or recorded and confirmed in ECMS by Tribunal members, Registrar or staff (r 15(a)-(d)(i)-(iii)). This authorises digital confirmation as legally valid authentication.

• Place‑of‑custody disclosure duty (r 16). Duty: the CEO must, within 48 hours of a request by the Chief Mental Health Advocate, provide the name of the place of custody.

• Transcript supply duties and request rights (rr 17-19). Duty: courts must provide full transcripts to the Tribunal on supervision orders (r 17(1)-(2)); if transcript unavailable, they must provide written reasons or a judicial summary as soon as reasonably practicable (r 17(3)). The Chief Mental Health Advocate may request transcripts for a defined list of orders and courts must comply if transcripts exist (r 18). The Public Advocate may request from the Tribunal the information given under r 17, with exception for child cases (r 19).

• Arrest warrant form and execution (r 20, Schedule 1). Duty/right: the Schedule prescribes the warrant form and data to be collected on execution; police and persons authorised under Court Security and Custodial Services Act Sch. 2 cl. 2 are addressees.

These duties create concrete rights of access for oversight bodies and victims while allocating operational notification duties to police, health professionals, correctional managers and court/Tribunal registries. The Regulations repeatedly limit duties to information known to the decision‑maker at the relevant time, creating a knowledge‑bounded obligation.

The Regulations primarily prescribe procedural and information obligations rather than create new criminal offences or monetary penalties. They operate as subordinate legislation implementing duties imposed by the parent Act. The text does not introduce express sanctions within the Regulations themselves for non‑compliance; instead enforcement and consequence mechanisms are embedded in the Act’s framework to which the Regulations refer. Practical enforcement modalities and consequences arising from failures under the Regulations will therefore depend on the Act’s enforcement provisions and existing administrative and judicial mechanisms:

• Administrative compliance and oversight. The Regulations place clear administrative obligations on courts, Tribunal, CEOs, correctional and health institutions and police. Non‑compliance would likely be addressed through institutional accountability, internal governance (registrar or CEO processes), and oversight by statutory advocates (the Chief Mental Health Advocate and the Public Advocate), which have rights to receive information (rr 6, 7, 14, 21). The Regulations enable these advocates to identify failures to receive required information and pursue remedies or inquiries set out in their enabling statutes or the Act.

• Judicial remedies. Because obligations around transcripts, written reasons and copies of orders are procedural duties attached to judicial decision‑making, failure to comply may produce case management consequences, including requests for rehearing, complaints to judicial officers or registrar orders to remedy the omission (r 17-18). The Regulations themselves do not set appeal routes specific to non‑compliance.

• Police execution of warrants. The Schedule prescribes form and execution particulars for arrest warrants (r 20, Schedule 1). Failures in execution would be dealt with under policing law and operational rules. The Regulations do not create separate criminal liability for execution failures.

• Notification duties and statutory consequences. Persons required to notify the Tribunal about breaches (rr 9-10) are designated classes; failure to notify could undermine protection mechanisms in the Act (such as the Tribunal’s ability to apply to court under s 88). The Regulations do not provide direct sanctions but non‑notification may have downstream legal consequences, including missed opportunities for review or enforcement under the Act.

• Authentication and record integrity. The ECMS authentication provision (r 15(d)) imposes a formal record‑keeping method. Failure to authenticate properly could produce evidentiary or administrative issues, but the Regulations do not prescribe penal consequences.

In short, the Regulations are implementational; they structure flows and set timing and content expectations but rely on existing statutory enforcement frameworks, institutional accountability and judicial case management to give effect to compliance. Practitioners should therefore map these procedural duties against the parent Act’s enforcement provisions and the operational policies of the implicated agencies to identify concrete sanction or remedy pathways. The Regulations’ provisions that limit duties to information actually known to the decision‑maker (for example r 6(2), r 7(3)) also create a de facto defence to allegations of non‑compliance where information was genuinely unknown at the time.

The Regulations explicitly cross‑reference and integrate with multiple statutes and administrative systems; they do not operate in isolation. The core interactions are:

• Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023. The Regulations are tied throughout to specific provisions of the Act, operationalising duties in Act ss 21, 23, 29, 30, 35, 36, 48, 73, 76, 80, 81, 82, 87-89, 94, 122, 153, 184, 190, 194, 230, 276 and others. Each Regulation identifies the relevant Act provision it implements (see headings and cross‑references throughout).

• Mental Health Act 2014. The Regulations adopt defined terms from the Mental Health Act 2014 for patient, treating psychiatrist, community treatment order, supervising psychiatrist and treating practitioner (r 8(1)). This ensures continuity in how clinical and custodial roles are referred to across mental health and criminal procedures, and affects which clinicians are prescribed recipients of order copies and reasons (r 8(2)(g)-(h)).

• Public Trustee Act 1941. The Regulations reference the Public Trustee definition when prescribing what constitutes an administrator for the supervised person and how administrator details are to be provided to the Chief Mental Health Advocate (r 7(2)(i)).

• Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1991 and Police Act 1892. The Regulations define DPP and Commissioner of Police by reference to these Acts respectively (r 3), which affects who may apply for appointment of a communication partner (r 4) and who is a notifier or recipient of documents (rr 8-11).

• Sentence Administration Act 2003. The term community corrections centre is taken from that Act (r 3) and used when prescribing what information about the CSO’s reporting conditions must be disclosed to victims (r 13(2)(c)).

• Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999. The arrest warrant Schedule identifies persons authorised under Sch. 2 cl. 2 of that Act as addressees, aligning the warrant form with existing custodial and court security authorities (Schedule 1).

• ECMS and electronic record law. The Regulations authenticate Tribunal orders by ECMS entries (r 15(d)), integrating statutory authentication with the electronic case management system used across WA courts and tribunals. Practically, this imports ECMS data integrity, access control, and audit trail considerations into the proof and service of Tribunal decisions.

• Child‑protection and guardianship frameworks. The Regulations require taking account of child‑specific considerations under Act s 10(a) and (f) before disclosing victim information about supervised persons who are children (r 13(3)). They also require notification of parent/guardian contact details and whether the child is under CEO (Community Services) care (rr 6(1)(h), 7(1)(f), 7(2)(j)).

• Privacy and information regimes. The Regulations mandate sharing detailed personal data between courts, oversight bodies and agencies (rr 6, 7, 14). While the Regulations do not reference privacy statutes directly, compliance will engage the Information Privacy principles applicable to WA public sector agencies. Practitioners should therefore align these disclosure obligations with privacy law requirements and agency policies to manage data protection, retention and authorised use.

The Regulations are designed to slot into the pre‑existing legal ecosystem. Their cross‑references to other Acts and to ECMS mean that implementation will require coordination between criminal courts, mental health services, guardianship and trustee offices, correctional services and policing, and a mapping exercise to reconcile disclosure obligations with privacy and child‑welfare constraints.

The Regulations compile as a single instrument, Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Regulations 2024, SL 2024/178. The compilation table provided in the source shows the Regulations were published 21 August 2024 and commenced operation on 1 September 2024 (r 2 and Compilation table). No subsequent amendments, version changes or historical variants appear in the compilation provided. The Regulations contain a defined‑terms list noting where particular terms are introduced (r 3 and Defined terms list).

Because these Regulations are newly made subordinate legislation implementing the 2023 Act, the initial instrument consolidates numerous procedural elements likely absent or previously handled elsewhere. Practically this means:

• The Regulations should be read as an initial, comprehensive operational set of rules for the transition to the new Act’s procedures from 1 September 2024.

• Any future change to the listed cross‑referenced definitions or to the parent Acts (for example Mental Health Act 2014 or Public Trustee Act 1941) may require consequential amendments to maintain internal consistency with definitions referenced in r 8 and elsewhere.

• The source contains no record of prior editions or repeals. If agencies require historical tracking for audit or litigation readiness, they should rely on the official WA legislation register for subsequent amendment entries; none are included in the present compilation.

The compilation notes that the document is a formal statutory compilation and includes a “Notes” section and defined terms extract. For compliance and legal operations, practitioners should monitor the WA legislation website for any post‑commencement amending instruments or statutory corrections to ensure that any later additions to notification classes, authentication procedures, or information duties are captured.

The source contains no case citations, reported litigation or judicial determinations about the Regulations. Because the Regulations commenced on 1 September 2024 (r 2 and Compilation table), there is no litigation history recorded within the compiled instrument. The Regulations do reference procedural points that may in future generate litigation, for example:

• disputes about whether a court or Tribunal had knowledge of specified information at the time of giving notice, which the Regulations explicitly make material (r 6(2), r 7(3), r 21(2));

• potential contestation over whether a ground rules hearing was required or whether a communication partner should have been appointed or compelled to attend (r 4);

• evidentiary or authentication challenges where orders are authenticated via ECMS entries or staff signatures rather than judicial signatures (r 15);

• access to transcripts and written reasons where courts or registries delay or fail to provide them and stakeholders (Chief Mental Health Advocate, Public Advocate, Tribunal) assert statutory rights to receive them (rr 17-19).

At present, however, the compiled Regulations themselves list no judicial decisions. Practitioners should monitor case law and administrative review decisions emerging after commencement, particularly decisions interpreting the knowledge limitation (information not known to the court/Tribunal at the time) and the scope of notification duties for health professionals and police. For now, the Regulations are a fresh procedural code and any litigation to date is not recorded in the provided text.

The Regulations contain several technical features and drafting choices that create practical risks and traps for practitioners and administrators. Key “gotchas” to be aware of, with citations:

• Knowledge‑bounded disclosure duties (r 6(2), r 7(3), r 21(2)). Several duties are explicitly limited to information “known to the court or Tribunal when the court gives notice” or “known to the Tribunal when the Tribunal provides the details”. This knowledge cap creates a factual boundary: an agency cannot be held to have failed to disclose items it did not know at the time. It also creates evidence‑gathering incentives to document what was known and when, and a risk that internal silos lead to incomplete disclosures that subsequent review will characterise as non‑compliance.

• Mandatory attendance language with judicial discretion (r 4(3)). The communication partner “must attend the ground rules hearing unless the court or Tribunal orders otherwise”. The mandatory default plus judicial power to excuse attendance can produce litigation if the accused or their representative consider the partner’s attendance essential. Courts should therefore give clear reasons when excusing attendance.

• “As soon as practicable” vs “as soon as reasonably practicable” (rr 17(2), 17(3), 18(2)-(3), 19(2)). Different reasonableness/practicability standards are used for timing of transcript/reason provision. These nuances can become disputes where there are delays; practitioners should document efforts and constraints (transcription backlogs, redaction needs).

• Authentication by staff or ECMS (r 15). Orders are authenticated by staff signatures with Tribunal seal or by ECMS entry confirmed by staff or members. This allows non‑judicial authentication and raises evidentiary and chain‑of‑custody questions. Administrations must ensure robust ECMS controls and audit logs. Defence, prosecution or advocates may query authentication methods in contested contexts.

• Photograph disclosure condition (r 13(4)). A photograph may be disclosed to victims but “a copy of the photograph must not be given”. Practical issues: how is disclosure effected (viewing only, controlled access), and how to prevent copying in practice. Agencies must have secure viewing protocols and be prepared to justify how they prevent reproduction.

• Child‑specific gateway (r 13(3)). Before disclosing victim material in relation to a supervised person who is a child, the CEO must consider Act s 10(a) and (f). Those Act provisions are not reproduced in the Regulations, so administrators must consult the Act to apply the correct balancing factors. Failure to account for child‑specific considerations risks invalid disclosure.

• Arrest warrant form data (Schedule 1). The Schedule asks for disability type, guardian status, and lists specific statutory reasons for issue mapped to Act provisions. Accuracy here matters: police executing the warrant will rely on the provided details. Misstatements about guardianship or disability could create procedural or custody complications.

• Notification classes are broad or operationally dispersed (rr 9-10). Notification duties fall on police, health professionals, and DSC declared place managers. Where multiple organisations must notify, coordination failures may produce gaps; the duty does not prescribe the timeline for notification, nor penalties, so agencies must create internal SOPs.

• Overlap between clinical confidentiality and disclosure duties. The Regulations require sharing clinical reports, treatment program descriptions and treating clinician details (rr 5, 7, 8, 13). Agencies must reconcile these duties with privacy/confidentiality obligations, and establish legal bases for disclosure under the Act rather than relying on general consent.

• Differences in recipient lists by context (r 8). The list of persons to receive copies of orders varies depending on whether the supervised person is a patient, under a community treatment order, a child, detained in a DSC declared place, or otherwise. Administrations must maintain decision trees to ensure the right recipients receive documents.

• Timeframes for place‑of‑custody disclosure (r 16). The CEO must provide the name of place of custody within 48 hours of the Chief Mental Health Advocate’s request. Agencies must track requests and produce reliable records to meet this relatively short deadline.

Addressing these gotchas requires administrative protocols, staff training, and records management systems that reflect the specific requirements and the knowledge‑bounded formulations in multiple provisions.

Practical steps and an operational checklist, mapped to key Regulations, for courts, Tribunal staff, CEOs, health services, police, legal practitioners, and advocates to achieve compliance:

Court and Tribunal registries

• Implement notification workflows to ensure prescribed information is sent when proceedings are adjourned (r 6) and when custody or community supervision orders are made (r 7, r 12). Include a “knowledge log” for each matter documenting what was known and when to satisfy the knowledge limitations in r 6(2) and r 7(3).
• Build ECMS templates and validation scripts so that Tribunal orders can be authenticated by ECMS entry by an authorised member, Registrar or staff member (r 15(d)). Keep audit trails of who made the ECMS confirmation.
• Provide transcripts to the Tribunal as soon as practicable and supply written reasons or a judicial summary where transcripts are not available (r 17). Maintain a tracking system for transcript requests, and a priority process for matters listed in r 18 where the Chief Mental Health Advocate may request a transcript.
• Maintain standard letters and secure transmission channels for delivering copies of orders and reasons to the persons prescribed in r 8 (Commissioner of Police, Chief Mental Health Advocate, CEO, CEO Corrections, CEO Young Offenders, DSC CEO where applicable, Chief Psychiatrist, treating clinicians).

Judicial officers

• Where appointing or considering appointment of a communication partner, document the basis of the decision and, if a ground rules hearing is held, record the orders about communication needs and the role of the communication partner (r 4). If excusing the communication partner from attendance, state reasons on the record to avoid procedural challenge (r 4(3)).

Chief Mental Health Advocate and Public Advocate offices

• Establish receipt protocols to accept and securely store the sets of personal and case information specified in r 6, r 7 and r 14. Log times of requests for place‑of‑custody information and expect compliance within 48 hours (r 16).
• Use the transcript request powers in r 18 and r 19 as part of monitoring case progress and systemic reviews. Where requests are refused or delayed, document the justification relying on the knowledge limits and timing standards.

Health services, treating clinicians and report authors

• Ensure mental state reports explicitly include the nature of any risk to self or community and the qualifications and expertise of the preparer (r 5). Adopt a report header checklist to ensure these components are present every time.
• Create SOPs for notification of CSO breaches where health professionals are in the notifier class (r 10). Clarify communication channels to the Tribunal and police.

CEOs, correctional managers and DSC declared place managers

• Maintain procedures for notifying the Tribunal of leave‑of‑absence breaches (r 9) and for providing region/city/suburb information and treatment program descriptions to victims as prescribed (r 13). Ensure systems to respond to Chief Mental Health Advocate place‑of‑custody requests within 48 hours (r 16).
• For supervised persons who are children, implement child‑specific screening before disclosure to victims to satisfy the requirement in r 13(3), referring to Act s 10(a) and (f).

Police and custodial services

• Train officers on the prescribed arrest warrant form (Schedule 1) and execution details. Ensure custody and station records can capture the fields in the Schedule (disability, guardian status, reason for issue, place to be taken) and that execution particulars are recorded (Schedule 1 execution block).
• Implement notification protocols for Tribunal breach reporting for leave and CSO conditions (rr 9-10). Ensure chain of evidence/administrative checks when executing warrants issued under s 230 and formatted per Schedule 1.

Victim support units

• Create intake checklists to request and receive the limited set of information permitted under r 13, and ensure that photographs disclosed are not released as copies (r 13(4)). For child offenders, coordinate with CEOs to ensure the child‑specific Act s 10 considerations are applied before disclosure (r 13(3)).

All agencies

• Review and align privacy, confidentiality and record‑retention policies with the Regulations’ information flows. Where the Regulations require disclosure of clinical documents, create secure transmission channels and redaction procedures that conform to privacy obligations while fulfilling the Act’s information duties.
• Record all correspondence, records of knowledge, dates and times for decisions, and reasons where relevant,for example, when a court or Tribunal decides not to give particular information because it was not known at the time (r 6(2), r 7(3)).
• Prepare templates for the Tribunal’s required detail when applying to court over suspected CSO breaches (r 11). Those templates should collate the suspected breach particulars, review date, information considered, reasonable suspicion material and any evidence relevant to an issued warrant.

Checklist summary mapped to Regulations

• r 4: Prepare forms for communication partner applications; schedule ground rules hearings; require attendance unless exclusion order recorded.
• r 5: Adopt report template fields for risk description and author qualifications.
• r 6-7-14-21: Build secure data‑exchange workflows for notices to Chief Mental Health Advocate and Public Advocate, with knowledge logs.
• r 8: Create distribution lists and delivery proof for order copies.
• r 9-10: Implement notifier SOPs for police, managers and health professionals.
• r 11-12: Maintain Tribunal‑to‑court and court‑to‑Tribunal reporting templates with evidentiary attachments.
• r 13: Victim disclosure protocols, photograph viewing-only controls, child‑specific decision trees.
• r 15: ECMS authentication procedures and audit logs.
• r 16: 48‑hour response process for place‑of‑custody requests.
• r 17-19: Transcript request tracking and fallback to written reasons/summaries.
• Schedule 1 (r 20): Standardise arrest warrant form completion and execution records.

By embedding these procedural templates, audit trails, secure transmission channels and decision logs into day‑to‑day operations, agencies and practitioners can align with the Regulations’ formal duties and manage the practical compliance risks identified above.