Attorney-General of New South Wales v Ramirez (No 3) (Interim Orders)

Case [2018] NSWSC 1444


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney-General of New South Wales v Ramirez (No 3) (Interim Orders) [2018] NSWSC 1444
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 29 August 2018
Decision date: 25 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:

See [7]-[8].

Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH – forensic patient – application for interim extension order – defendant with schizoaffective disorder – grandiose delusions regarding attractiveness to women – threshold requirements conceded – length of extension order
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Attorney-General of New South Wales v Ramirez [2018] NSWSC 662
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Attorney-General of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
James Aaron Ramirez bht Sophie Tsatsimas (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Rose (Plaintiff)
K Stares (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/67942

Judgment

  1. On 29 August 2018, I determined that the defendant should remain the subject of an order extending his status as a forensic patient. The order I made was as follows:

1. Pursuant to cl. 10 and cl. 11(1) of Sch 1 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the defendant be subject to an interim extension order commencing from 2 September 2018 for a period of 28 days or until the proceedings are finally determined.

  1. These are my reasons for making that order.

  2. On 14 May 2018, having considered the evidence then tendered, I concluded that it was appropriate to grant interim orders extending the defendant’s status as a forensic patient: Attorney-General of New South Wales v Ramirez [2018] NSWSC 662.

  3. Since those orders, I made further orders that the defendant be subject to an interim extension order because the reports of Dr Kerri Eagle forensic psychiatrist, dated 25 July 2018 and Dr Adrian Keller psychiatrist, dated 21 July 2018, set out that the defendant has a diagnosis of either schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia combined with a substance use disorder with vulnerability to relapse and that he poses a risk of causing serious harm to others in the future if he ceases to be a forensic patient. The bases for their conclusions are set out in detail of the reports of each experts which will be examined in further detail at the final hearing.

  4. As I concluded at the first preliminary hearing (Attorney-General of New South Wales v Ramirez [2018] NSWSC 662) at [58]:

“[58]   Given the intractable nature of the Defendant’s condition and its resistance to treatment as set out in the supporting documentation, I am satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation, if proved, are capable of demonstrating to a high degree of probability that the risk posed by the Defendant cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means…”

  1. The expert opinions of Dr Eagle and Dr Keller add further weight to this view.

  2. Accordingly, I continue to be satisfied the statutory requirements are met and that the defendant should be made subject to an interim extension order commencing from 2 September 2018 for a period of 28 days or until the proceedings are finally determined.

  3. The proceedings are listed for final hearing on 18 September 2018 with an estimate of 1 day.

**********

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General of New South Wales v Ramirez (No 3) (Interim Orders) [2018] NSWSC 1444
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1444
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, the Attorney-General of New South Wales, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an extension order in relation to a forensic patient, Ramirez, who had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. Ramirez had been subject to a forensic order since 2005, and the Attorney-General sought a further extension of this order to ensure Ramirez's continued detention, on the basis of his ongoing mental health issues, which included grandiose delusions regarding his attractiveness to women. Both parties conceded that the threshold requirements for the making of an extension order had been satisfied.

The court was required to consider the appropriate length of the extension order, with the Attorney-General recommending a period of six months. Ramirez's counsel argued for a shorter extension of three months, contending that Ramirez's condition had stabilised to the extent that a shorter extension would be sufficient. The court considered the medical evidence and the nature of Ramirez's mental health condition in determining the appropriate duration of the extension order.

The Supreme Court found that the appropriate length of the extension order should be six months, as recommended by the Attorney-General. The court accepted that Ramirez's mental health condition remained serious and required ongoing treatment and detention to protect the public. The court emphasised the need for the extension order to provide sufficient time for Ramirez to receive appropriate treatment and for his condition to be monitored. Ramirez's application for an extension order was therefore granted for a period of six months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.