Attorney General for New South Wales v Skerry (by his tutor Ramjan) (Preliminary)

In this preliminary matter, the Attorney General for New South Wales sought to have Skerry, a defendant who had been found unfit to stand trial in relation to a particular offence, declared a forensic patient. Skerry, who was on a community treatment order at the time of the offence, had been found to be unfit to stand trial in a preliminary hearing. Consequently, Skerry had been detained in a prison hospital facility, where the offence was made out in a special hearing. Following this, Skerry was detained in a mental health facility. Interim orders extending Skerry's status as a forensic patient had already been made on two occasions, with the opposition to these orders not being raised. The Attorney General sought final orders to extend Skerry's status as a forensic patient, which was opposed by Skerry. The court was required to determine whether the statutory conditions for making interim orders were satisfied, and whether Skerry should be made a forensic patient.

The court considered whether Skerry posed a significant risk of serious harm to others if not detained, and whether continued oversight of the Mental Health Review Tribunal was the preferable course of risk management. The court found that Skerry's offending behaviour was indicative of a mental illness that required treatment and that the efficacy of a community treatment order was potentially limited. The court held that the statutory conditions for making interim orders were satisfied, and that Skerry should be made a forensic patient. The court found that continued oversight of the Tribunal was the preferable course of risk management, as it would allow for regular reviews of Skerry's mental health and risk to the community.

The court made final orders declaring Skerry to be a forensic patient, subject to the conditions set out in the order. The court emphasised the importance of continued oversight of Skerry's mental health and risk to the community, and the need for regular reviews to ensure that the appropriate balance was being struck between Skerry's rights and the safety of the community. The court also noted that the orders were subject to review and could be varied or discharged if circumstances changed.