Attorney-General (SA) v Fieldhouse - [2024] SASC 150

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v FIELDHOUSE
[2024] SASC 150
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
18 December 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
This is an application for a Continuing Detention Order (CDO) pursuant to s 18(2) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (HRO Act). The respondent is currently the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) that is due to expire on 12 March 2025. The Attorney-General makes an application for the imposition of CDO until the expiry of the ESO.
The applicant brings this application on the basis that the respondent has repeatedly breached his ESO conditions, initially imposed following the respondent committing a serious violent offence. The applicant contends that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained in custody. Amongst the multiple breaches overtime are the respondent testing positive for methylamphetamine and cannabis, contravening the terms of an electronic monitoring condition, and new criminal charges of driving dangerously to escape a police pursuit, driving without due care and hindering police.
In bringing this application, the applicant contends that while the respondent has not been convicted of any violent offences, his risk has manifested in a pattern of the consumption of illicit drugs, and disinhibited behaviour placing the community at risk. This application is contested on the basis that the evidence relied upon does not establish that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. It is further submitted that the most effective protection for the community is for the respondent to engage in rehabilitation and regain his mental health, which can be achieved upon reintegration into the community with the support of the appropriate ESO conditions.
The applicant has made an alternative application for a variation to the ESO to increase the stringency of the conditions.
Held:
1. The application for the imposition of a CDO is to be dismissed.
2.The subsequent application, brought by the applicant, to vary the respondent’s current ESO is granted.

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 5(c), s 18(2); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 23(3), s 19AC(1)(a); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 6(2); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45(1), referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v FIELDHOUSE
[2024] SASC 150
Criminal: Application
McDONALD J.

This is an application by the Attorney-General for Jake Fieldhouse to be the subject of a Continuing Detention Order (CDO) pursuant to s 18 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2014 (SA) (HRO Act). That section provides that a CDO can be made if the court is satisfied that a person has breached a condition of a supervision order and that they pose an appreciable risk to the community if not detained in custody. The CDO may be made until the expiration of the supervision order, or for a lesser period as specified by the court.[1] Currently Mr Fieldhouse is the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) that is due to expire on 12 March 2025. The Attorney General’s application is for a CDO until the expiry of the ESO.
[1] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 18(2).
A CDO is a mechanism by which the court can manage the risk that a person on an ESO poses to the community in circumstances in which they have been non-compliant with one or more of the conditions of the ESO.
The ESO
Mr Fieldhouse was made the subject of an ESO on 13 March 2024. It is the second ESO made in relation to Mr Fieldhouse. The first ESO was made on 21 April 2021. On that occasion Stanley J determined that Mr Fieldhouse was “a serious violent offender” who had committed a “serious offence of violence”,[2] that he “posed an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under the order”[3] and that in all of the circumstances it was appropriate to make the order.
[2] Ibid s 5(c).
[3] Ibid s 7(4).
Mr Fieldhouse’s index offence was aggravated causing serious harm,[4] which was committed on 26 April 2016. It involved him striking a stranger a number of times with a jagged piece of glass from a broken bottle. The circumstances in which that offence occurred are important. The episode commenced at a service station when the victim, who was seated in his car, saw Mr Fieldhouse assaulting his girlfriend. Mr Fieldhouse was dragging her by the hair as she was attempting to get away from him. The victim telephoned the police however, as he was waiting for them to come, the assault escalated resulting in the victim getting out of his vehicle to assist the woman. As the victim confronted Mr Fieldhouse, Mr Fieldhouse struck him a number of times to the face, arm and body with the broken bottle. As a consequence, the victim required 27 stitches and three staples for the facial and bodily injuries that he sustained.
[4] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 23(3).
For that offence, Mr Fieldhouse was sentenced to three years and five months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. At the time of sentencing, the Judge, McEwen DCJ referred to a psychiatric report that had been provided by Dr Jack White in which Dr White stated:
Mr Fieldhouse was impulsive, hostile, impatient and unempathetic. Interpersonal relationships were likely to be stormy and short lived; even those close relationships that had been maintained may have suffered the strain from Mr Fieldhouse’s hostile, self centred and often demanding presentation. The combination of impulsivity, resentment and high-energy levels may cause Mr Fieldhouse to have little consideration for the needs of others and to lash out impulsively at those around him when crossed. These same traits also placed Mr Fieldhouse at increased risk for ‘acting out’ behaviours and it was more likely that such behaviours that led to impairment in his ability to maintain social role expectations in both formal (e.g. work) and informal settings.
Since that time, the only further offence for which Mr Fieldhouse has been convicted is carrying an offensive weapon, which occurred on 3 September 2020. On that occasion police located Mr Fieldhouse in the bathroom of an OTR. He appeared to be experiencing some form of drug induced psychosis. Mr Fieldhouse had with him a bag which contained a small amount of methylamphetamine and a knife. The latter was the subject of the charge.
Mr Fieldhouse was conveyed to the Lyell McEwin Hospital as a result of concerns about his presentation and was later issued a drug diversion notice for the methylamphetamine.
Offences committed prior to the index offence
These offences must also be considered in the context of Mr Fieldhouse’s offending prior to the commission of the index offence. The prior offences most relevant to this application are as follows:
●On 13 July 2012, Mr Fieldhouse was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault causing harm involving the use of a weapon and an aggravated assault causing harm that did not involve a weapon.
●On 2 November 2012, he was convicted of a further two aggravated assaults and one count of assault causing harm.
●On 4 July 2014, Mr Fieldhouse was convicted of another aggravated assault and an aggravated theft.
The two 4 July 2014 offences involved Mr Fieldhouse, in the company of another, accosting a person unknown to them, making demands for money, during the course of which the victim was physically assaulted. For these offences, Mr Fieldhouse was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year. Mr Fieldhouse was on parole in respect of this offending when he committed the index offence.
Breach of Parole and ESO conditions
Mr Fieldhouse has breached his parole conditions and both ESOs on numerous occasions. He has also demonstrated erratic behaviour and emotional lability over the same period.
At the time that Mr Fieldhouse was located in the bathroom at the OTR in possession of a knife, he was on parole. He was returned to custody on 14 September 2020 for breaching his parole conditions including the curfew, no drugs, no weapons and a residential condition. On 17 October 2020, the Parole Board found those breaches proved however, determined to release Mr Fieldhouse with additional conditions requiring that he be the subject of electronic monitoring and that he report twice weekly to his Supervising Officer.
On 7 January 2021, Mr Fieldhouse breached the residential and no drug conditions of his parole. A Parole Board warrant was issued and he was again arrested and taken back into custody on 8 January 2021.
On 24 February 2021, Mr Fieldhouse first became the subject of an Interim Supervision Order (ISO). The following day he was released from custody.
On 28 February 2021, within four days of his release, Mr Fieldhouse was found on the roof of the Sage Motel, damaging aerials. He was found in the corridor of the hotel wearing only his underpants. He was evicted from this accommodation by the hotel management and arrested later that day.
On 6 April 2021, the Parole Board interviewed Mr Fieldhouse about breaching the good behaviour condition of the ESO as a consequence of the events of 28 February 2021. It was determined to defer any decision pending further information about accommodation. The alleged breach was again considered by the Parole Board on 20 April 2021, with the same outcome, to defer any decision pending suitable accommodation being identified.
On 21 April 2021, the order was made for the first ESO and Mr Fieldhouse was released from custody.
On 29 April 2021, a member of the public contacted the police to advise them that a male (Mr Fieldhouse) was wandering around the Freemasons Hall shouting and causing issues. Police attended and removed him. It was alleged that on 7 May 2021, Mr Fieldhouse reattended at the Freemasons Hall and assaulted a member of the public and then returned back there again on 10 May 2021. On that occasion, police arrested Mr Fieldhouse at the scene and charged him with the assault that was alleged to have occurred on 10 May. That charge was subsequently discontinued.
On 11 May 2021, the Parole Board issued a warrant for Mr Fieldhouse’s arrest, and he was taken into custody that same day.
On 8 June 2021, Mr Fieldhouse was interviewed by the Parole Board in relation to breaches of the good behaviour and no drugs conditions of the ESO. A decision on the breach of the good behaviour condition was deferred until a determination of the assault charge. The no drugs breach was found proved on the basis that Mr Fieldhouse had admitted to consuming a ‘few totes’ of cannabis to his Case Manager shortly after his release. The Parole Board determined to release Mr Fieldhouse on 24 June 2021.
On 25 June 2021, the day after his release from custody, police attended at another incident that Mr Fieldhouse had been involved in. There is some contest as to what occurred on this occasion so I will only refer to those aspects of the events that are the least contentious.
At about 11pm, police were called to attend at the unit complex where Mr Fieldhouse was living as there had been a reports of a male person smashing items and banging on doors.
Upon their arrival, police saw Mr Fieldhouse standing on his balcony screaming and yelling and obviously bleeding from the hand. As police approached him, they observed that Mr Fieldhouse appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Such was his condition that Mr Fieldhouse was unable to stand unaided. After being restrained, Mr Fieldhouse was emotional, incoherent, and discussing past life events. As a consequence he was conveyed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for a mental health assessment. Whilst there, Mr Fieldhouse had a blood test which came back positive for THC and methylamphetamine.
On 27 June 2021, a Parole Board warrant was issued for Mr Fieldhouse’s arrest on the basis of alleged breaches of the good behaviour, no drugs and no alcohol conditions. On 28 June 2021, the warrant was executed, and Mr Fieldhouse was taken back into custody.
Although Mr Fieldhouse was initially charged with a number of offences as a consequence of this episode, ultimately, they were discontinued.
On 2 July 2021, Mr Fieldhouse provided a urine sample in custody that tested positive for THC.
On 19 August 2021, Mr Fieldhouse was interviewed by the Parole Board in relation to breaching his curfew, the good behaviour, no drugs and no alcohol conditions of the ESO as a result of the events on 26 June 2021, as well the test that was positive for THC on 2 July 2021. The Parole Board found all of the breaches proved however determined to release Mr Fieldhouse under the conditions of the ESO on 23 August 2021.
On 14 October 2021, Mr Fieldhouse received a positive result for THC in a urine test. The Supervising Officer recommended that no further action be taken. It would seem that this was at least in part because, at that time, Mr Fieldhouse was engaging well and experiencing a period of relative stability in his life. He had commenced on the High Intensity Treatment program and appeared to be responding well to the intense level of supervision. It was seen to be significant that prior to his release Mr Fieldhouse had identified the goal of seeking employment to ensure that his time was adequately utilised and upon his release he was able to independently source employment. However, this employment was subsequently terminated on 14 October 2021 for reasons beyond his control.
It was reported by the Supervising Officer to the Parole Board that since his release on 23 August 2021, Mr Fieldhouse had not reported any engagement with illicit substances with the exception of cannabis, which he claimed assisted him to remain calm and sleep in the evenings. Mr Fieldhouse at that time appeared to identify and accept the risk that was present when he used alcohol and methylamphetamine and said that he was committed to remain abstinent from those substances.
At that time Mr Fieldhouse was also observed to be engaging in therapy sessions and his attendance was consistent. However, he continued to demonstrate a lack of insight and remained resistant to help, believing that he could and should do things independently.
Those supervising Mr Fieldhouse expressed the view that overall Mr Fieldhouse had demonstrated a significant period of stability and compliance in the community, particularly in comparison to his previous time on the ESO.
Unfortunately, things took a downward turn on 1 November 2021 when Mr Fieldhouse was charged with the offences of aggravated serious criminal trespass and assault causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm. Mr Fieldhouse was arrested and remanded in custody. Ultimately the aggravated serious criminal trespass charge did not proceed and on 6 September 2023 Mr Fieldhouse was found not guilty by a jury of the charge of assault causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm.
Mr Fieldhouse remained in custody over this period of time, having made numerous unsuccessful bail applications.
On 2 November 2021, a Parole Board warrant was issued.
On 7 November 2021, whilst in custody, Mr Fieldhouse returned a positive result in a urine test for cannabis and buprenorphine.
On 16 December 2021, Mr Fieldhouse was interviewed by the Parole Board in relation to breaching the no drug condition by the positive test for THC on 14 October 2021 and the good behaviour condition as a consequence of the charges arising from the event of 1 November 2021.
The Parole Board found that the breach of the no drugs condition had been proved and deferred the decision about the breach of the good behaviour condition until the criminal charges had been determined. Mr Fieldhouse was to be released in so far as he was being held in custody on the Parole Board warrant on 17 December 2021, however, as I have mentioned, he was not granted bail in relation to the criminal charges.
On 29 March 2023, an order for an ISO was made.
On 6 September 2023, Mr Fieldhouse was released from custody.
On 13 October 2023, Mr Fieldhouse was arrested and charged with the offence of being unlawfully on premises. The charge arose out of his presence at, and behaviour inside, the grounds of a church. This charge was subsequently discontinued. I will come back to this incident when I come to deal with the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Raeside.
After spending two days at Lyell McEwin Hospital, Mr Fieldhouse was returned to custody.
A Parole Board warrant was issued. Mr Fieldhouse was granted bail on the unlawfully on premises charge, however initially remained in custody on the Parole Board warrant.
On 28 November 2023, Mr Fieldhouse was interviewed by the Parole Board and they resolved to release him on a date to be fixed pending suitable accommodation for his release.
On 13 March 2024, the current ESO was made and Mr Fieldhouse was released from custody. It would appear that upon his release Mr Fieldhouse was prescribed medicinal cannabis. Given Mr Fieldhouse’s background and history this would appear to have been a most unfortunate development.
On 27 March 2024, within two weeks of the imposition of the second ESO, Mr Fieldhouse tested positive to methylamphetamine and cannabis, albeit that the cannabis had been prescribed for him. The Parole Board found that Mr Fieldhouse had breached a condition of the ESO by using methylamphetamine however, determined to take no further action at that time.
On 16 May 2024, Mr Fieldhouse tested positive for cannabis and oxazepam. The cannabis was again prescribed. When Mr Fieldhouse was asked about the positive result, he initially denied taking any medication but ultimately acknowledged that he took a “tablet” from a friend as he believed it was a painkiller.
Recent charges and breaches of the ESO
On 10 June 2024, Mr Fieldhouse was arrested by police for further offending. At about 2.50pm, police on uniformed patrols observed a black Holden travel through a red light at the intersection of Whitmore Square and Sturt Street, Adelaide. The vehicle continued to travel southbound on Morphett Street where the police attempted a vehicle stop.
The vehicle appeared to be complying and coming to a stop by pulling to the side of the road at the intersection of Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue and South Terrace however, prior to coming to a complete stop, the vehicle took off at speed. Police activated sirens and emergency lights and commenced a pursuit of the vehicle for a distance of approximately 300 metres. It is alleged that the vehicle was travelling at speeds of approximately 80-90 km/h in a signed 50 km/h zone. The vehicle was travelling in the left of two southbound lanes and began erratically swerving across the lanes at speed. The pursuit was terminated as a consequence of the dangerous nature of the driving. Police continued however, to make observations of the vehicle.
It is alleged that the vehicle attempted to make a left hand turn to travel eastbound on Greenhill Road at a speed of approximately 50-60 km/h as heavy traffic was travelling in that direction on Greenhill Road through the intersection. Due to the speed at which the vehicle was travelling, it appeared to understeer and subsequently collided with another motorist, causing both vehicles to spin and travel across the medium strip, into the westbound lanes of Greenhill Road.

Police were immediately on the scene and observed the driver, Mr Fieldhouse exit the black Holden as soon as it came to a stop.
Mr Fieldhouse was seen to remove a home detention electronic monitoring bracelet from his ankle before running from the scene.
Police gave chase and gave directions to stop, which were ignored. The police eventually managed to apprehend Mr Fieldhouse. As they attempted to apply handcuffs, Mr Fieldhouse physically resisted. He was arrested and taken into custody where he has remained since that date.
As a result of these events, Mr Fieldhouse has been charged with the offences of driving dangerously to escape a police pursuit[5], driving without due care[6] and hindering police[7] and was remanded in custody.
[5]    Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19AC(1)(a).
[6]    Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 6(2).
[7]    Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45(1)
On 27 August 2024, Mr Fieldhouse was granted bail in relation to the 10 June 2024 charge.
A Parole Board warrant was issued and executed the following day resulting in Mr Fieldhouse spending only about 15 hours in the community. It would appear to have been an oversight on the part of the Parole Board that a warrant was not issued earlier however the manner in which these events have unfolded have left Mr Fieldhouse feeling a sense of grievance.
Mr Fieldhouse was interviewed by the Parole Board on 17 September 2024. In that interview he maintained that when he had taken the oxazepam, he did not know what it was, he assumed that because it came out of a packet it was like Panadol. When asked about the events of 10 June 2024, Mr Fieldhouse generally declined to answer questions on the basis that the charges were currently before the Court. He did, however, admit that he was in the car and described what had happened as “a car accident”. He told the Parole Board that he had a defence to the charges and said that he had experienced a medical episode.
When asked about the removal of the electronic monitoring device, Mr Fieldhouse claimed that it may have “come off” in the accident. He said:
Perhaps it was damaged in the accident. I got hit pretty hard. There’s also other things, too, you don’t know. Like, I’ve been through a psychosis, and that, as well, recently, in James Nash House and stuff.
During the course of the interview, Mr Fieldhouse expressed considerable anger at the process of repeated ESOs and the cycle of breaching and being taken back into custody, particularly when he had not been found guilty of an offence of violence since 2018.
Following the interview, the parole Board determined that Mr Fieldhouse had breached the electronic monitoring condition of the ESO by removing his electronic monitoring device and that the breach of the no drugs condition had also been proved. They deferred consideration of whether Mr Fieldhouse had breached the condition that required him to be of good behaviour until after the resolution of the criminal proceedings.
On the basis of the breaches that the Parole Board found proved, they determined to detain Mr Fieldhouse in custody pending attendance before this court for consideration of a CDO.
Psychiatric evidence
Amongst the materials relied upon by the Attorney-General are reports of Dr Oliver Burgess dated 22 March 2021 and Dr Craig Raeside dated 13 February 2024.
2021 Report of Dr Burgess
The report of Dr Burgess was prepared as the result of an order made under s 7(3)(B) of the HRO Act at the time of the Attorney-General’s first application for an ESO.
For the purpose of preparing the report Dr Burgess had available to him various medical records, including hospital separation summaries. From these records, Dr Burgess provided an account of two hospital presentations that involved Mr Fieldhouse experiencing what appeared to be a drug induced psychosis. He explained:
… His first presentation occurred February 2016 following several weeks of methamphetamine use, culminating in an episode where “he was carrying a knife and acting in a threatening manner towards members of the public, accusing them of being paedophiles. He was also referring to a demon and “said he was a risk of harming other people as a result of this. He had been physically aggressive towards his father and brother. He told SAPOL of a desire to kill the demon but understood this would mean killing himself”. During his admission he made a rapid recovery. On discharge, he “denied any delusional content and displayed good insight and judgment regarding this episode”.
The second episode recounted by Dr Burgess occurred in September 2020:
In September 2020 he presented for a second time with a drug-induced psychosis due to methamphetamine use. At this time, he was brought to the hospital by SAPOL after jumping a service station counter and trying to hide. In the Emergency Department he was extremely agitated and absconded, however he then entered the hospital’s psychiatric ward asking for help. He was given sedative medication and respond well to this. Once recovered he provided an account that following three days of methamphetamine use he began experiencing numerous frightening psychotic experiences, including hallucinations of gods and higher powers who were angry at him and seeing evil spirits. Further, in December 2020 he presented to the Royal Adelaide Hospital with methamphetamine and Suboxone intoxication. There were no symptoms pf psychosis and he was quickly returned to custody.
During Dr Burgess’ interview with Mr Fieldhouse, he asked him about his own perception of the risk he posed. Mr Fieldhouse responded:
…he does not see himself as a danger to the community. He reported that there were several errors in the Extended Supervision Order paperwork and said that because of the errors. They made me out to be a danger in the community.
In his report Dr Burgess identified drug and alcohol abuse as one of Mr Fieldhouse’s greatest criminogenic risk factors. He explained the interconnection between Mr Fieldhouse’s substance abuse and his offending in the following manner:
Mr Fieldhouse’s history of substance use is long and varied. I would make particular note of alcohol use and amphetamine use. Both these substances have a well-known association with violence and offending. In Mr Fieldhouse’s case, it is notable that his September 2013 offences of aggravated assault and aggravated theft occurred in the context of alcohol intoxication. His index offence occurred following a morning of drinking and in a relationship with substance use (although it is unclear the extent to which Mr Fieldhouse himself was using amphetamines at the time of his offence). He has additionally presented to hospital twice with high levels of agitation and aggression in the setting of methamphetamine use. Mr Fieldhouse presents with only limited insight into the risk that intoxication pose, as demonstrated by his continued use whilst incarcerated and on parole. Further, in attempting to address his substance use, Mr Fieldhouse appeared focused on substituting his illicit substance use for prescribed Suboxone to allow him to continue to use some substance “to have fun”. He appeared to have little other adaptive strategies to avoid drug use.
At the time of preparing his report, Dr Burgess was of the opinion that Mr Fieldhouse was in the high-risk range for committing a further serious violent offence.
2024 report of Dr Raeside
Dr Raeside’s report was prepared to assist in the determination of the application for the second ESO.
Dr Raeside interviewed Mr Fieldhouse prior to writing the report. During that interview, Mr Fieldhouse expressed frustration and a sense of injustice about the circumstances in which he found himself. He told Dr Raeside that the police were unfairly targeting him, using by way of example that this was the sixth time that he had been charged with new offences whilst on the ESOs and five of those charges were withdrawn and he was acquitted of the sixth at trial.
Dr Raeside identified that substance abuse was a key criminogenic factor for Mr Fieldhouse. He explained that Mr Fieldhouse has a history of problematic drinking since his mid-teens, remains a cannabis user (including whilst in custody), has used methylamphetamine since he was 16 and has also regularly used MDMA.
Dr Raeside expressed the view that it was significant that Mr Fieldhouse had also been hospitalised on two further occasions (since Dr Burgess’ report) after presenting with an apparent drug induced psychosis related to methylamphetamine use. On 25 June 2021, Mr Fieldhouse presented at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital emergency department having been released from prison the previous day.[8] A neighbour had called the police after Mr Fieldhouse was seen to be agitated and aggressive, damaging his unit and punching windows. By the time that he was assessed in the emergency department, he was calm and compliant and generally settled. It appears that on that basis no psychiatric intervention was undertaken at that time.
[8] This was after the incident described at [20]-[22].
More recently Mr Fieldhouse was admitted to the Lyell McEwin Hospital psychiatric unit from 14 October 2023 to 16 October 2023. He had been released from custody five weeks earlier. The hospital separation summary notes that he was arrested at a church and had also been found driving erratically with bizarre behaviour and apparently psychotic beliefs, such as being bitten by a red belly snake and having a tracker in his body.
In the emergency department (prior to being admitted to the psychiatric unit) Mr Fieldhouse was found to be agitated, intense and guarded about recent events however, his presentation quickly resolved. The diagnostic impression was that Mr Fieldhouse likely had a drug induced psychosis with methylamphetamine withdrawal. This however, remained supposition because Mr Fieldhouse refused to disclose any drug use as he believed this would affect his legal situation.
In his interview with Dr Raeside, Mr Fieldhouse denied that he had taken any drugs on that occasion and claimed that he had feigned this episode on the basis that he did not want to be in the police cells over the weekend. He said that if he was going to be in custody over the weekend he would rather be in the hospital.
Rather than denying methylamphetamine use to Dr Raeside, Mr Fieldhouse instead said that he had “never offended whilst on it”. He did, however, acknowledge previous drug induced psychotic episodes when he was younger and on a “cocktail of drugs including meth”.
In concluding his report, Dr Raeside expressed the opinion that Mr Fieldhouse impulsivity is contributed to by his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in combination with underlying antisocial personality traits and likely an Antisocial Personality Disorder. He observed that against that background, dynamic factors, particularly substance abuse, are problematic and will increase his impulsivity and risk of further violence. Mr Fieldhouse’s lack of insight is also problematic in that regard.
Taking all of that into account, Dr Raeside opined that at that time Mr Fieldhouse remained at high risk of further serious violent offending. This had not been helped by the fact that Mr Fieldhouse had only limited involvement with Community Corrections due to his recurrent incarcerations, nor had he been involved in any extended programs that may have significantly reduced his risk.
The application for the Continued Detention Order
An Originating Application and Notice of Referral for consideration of a CDO were filed on 25 October 2024.
The application first came before me on 30 October 2024 and was subsequently listed for argument on 22 November 2024. As a consequence of the complexity of Mr Fieldhouse’s history and the issues that arose during the course of submissions, the hearing of the application took place over four days, those being; 22 November 2024, 29 November 2024, 11 December 2024 and 18 December 2024.
22 November 2024
On 22 November 2024, both counsel made submissions on whether Mr Fieldhouse should be the subject of a CDO. There was no dispute that before determining to make such an order I have to be satisfied that Mr Fieldhouse:
(a)has breached a condition of the supervision order;
and
(b)poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained in custody.
As with any application under the HRO Act, the primary consideration is the protection of the community. Beyond that, the HRO Act provides no guidance or criteria to be applied in determining whether to make a CDO.
It was not contested that Mr Fieldhouse had breached a condition of an ESO. The issue in dispute is whether he poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if I do not make the order.
In summary, it was the Attorney-General’s submission that whilst Mr Fieldhouse has not been convicted of any further offences of violence, his risk has manifested in a pattern of the consumption of illicit drugs, resulting in Mr Fieldhouse engaging in disinhibited behaviour which has the potential to put the community at risk. It was submitted that a CDO could serve the dual purpose of removing Mr Fieldhouse from the community, which of itself would reduce the risk that he poses, and enable him to undertake a six-week program that is run in the Mirnu Treatment Unit at the Yatala Labour Prison. It was explained that the program requires a participant to engage in a number of activities, including six modules which focus on emotional regulation, distress tolerance skills, drug and alcohol intervention, cognitive strategies, sexual respect and healthy relationships. I was advised that Mr Fieldhouse has been prioritised for inclusion in the program and it was likely that there would be a vacancy this year.
Mr Fieldhouse’s counsel Ms Tassone challenged the suggestion that Mr Fieldhouse poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. Her submission focussed on the fact that whilst Mr Fieldhouse has over time been charged with a number of offences, other than the most recent allegations, none have been proceeded with. That has had the consequence that Mr Fieldhouse has been repeatedly reincarcerated and has not had the opportunity to move forward in his life.
Ms Tassone submitted that a close analysis of Mr Fieldhouse’s history demonstrates that with the correct supports in place Mr Fieldhouse is capable of reintegrating into the community. In particular, Ms Tassone relied upon the period of time during which Mr Fieldhouse was on the HIT program. She said that at that time he was engaged and enjoyed being a part of the team. Through working with the HIT he was able to obtain independent housing and employment. It was submitted that Mr Fieldhouse could only have access to the HIT program if in the community.
A further submission made on behalf of Mr Fieldhouse, was that the best protection for the community is for Mr Fieldhouse to rehabilitate. In order for that to occur it is necessary for him to regain his mental health and whilst in custody he is receiving limited mental health support.
By the end of this hearing, it became apparent that there were some significant factual disputes between the parties, and I had not received the necessary materials or information to resolve those disputes. On that basis the submissions were adjourned to afford the parties time to attend to the outstanding matters.
29 November 2024
When the hearing resumed on 29 November 2024, I was advised of two unfortunate developments. These were that the HIT program had been disbanded and DCS had determined that Mr Fieldhouse was no longer suitable for placement on the Mirnu program. I was advised that the latter decision had been arrived at because Mr Fieldhouse had been involved in an incident prior to the previous hearing. On the way to the video suite, Mr Fieldhouse had, without authority, entered into the Mirnu unit and then refused to leave. As a consequence, it was determined by DCS that Mr Fieldhouse would not be offered a place in the program until he had been incident free for three months. Given Mr Fieldhouse’s release date, that effectively means that the program will now not be available to him.
The combined effect of these two developments means that regardless of whether I determine to make the CDO or release Mr Fieldhouse under the conditions of the ESO, he will not have available to him the sort of support and assistance that he clearly requires. It leaves me in a position of determining whether the public is best protected by removing Mr Fieldhouse from the community and incarcerating him until his March release date, at which time he will inevitably be released without any further treatment or counselling.
It was submitted by the Attorney-General that there is an alternative fall-back position that may ameliorate the risk that Mr Fieldhouse poses and that is for there to be a variation to the conditions of the ESO, including a requirement for home detention and a prohibition on Mr Fieldhouse consuming marijuana, even if legally prescribed. Having made that suggestion, Dr Lake sensibly conceded that increasing the restrictions under the ESO was a “catch 22 situation” in that given Mr Fieldhouse’s poor impulse control, it may be more difficult for him to be compliant.
The Attorney-General however maintained their primary submission, which was that I should make the CDO on the basis that Mr Fieldhouse has demonstrated an entrenched pattern of behaviour that involves being released from custody, using cannabis and/or methylamphetamine and then engaging in erratic, risk taking behaviour. Behaviour that not only puts Mr Fieldhouse at risk but also the broader community.
In her submissions Ms Tassone, did not accept the suggestion that a condition prohibiting the consumption of cannabis would be of benefit for Mr Fieldhouse. She submitted that it was medicinal, that it is legally prescribed for pain relief, for his sleeping disorder, anxiety and depression.
Ms Tassone also submitted that the imposition of strict conditions would have a deleterious impact on Mr Fieldhouse. She suggested that it would be setting him up to fail and it would make it even more difficult for him to find a suitable address. Previously he had been accommodated at the St Vincent’s men’s homeless shelter, however that had only been available to him because he was the subject of electronic monitoring with freedom of movement. It was submitted that such residential facilities cannot accommodate home detention conditions.
Ms Tassone also made the point that whilst Mr Fieldhouse had been charged with a number of offences – the vast majority had been discontinued and, in those circumstances, she submitted that “these events did not occur” as alleged by police and should be disregarded.
With respect, that submission missed the point. There are any number of reasons why police choose to discontinue charges, particularly in circumstances in which the allegations are less serious, and the alleged offender appeared to be experiencing mental health issues. That does not detract from the observations of Mr Fieldhouse’s behaviour at the relevant time.
Ms Tassone accepted Mr Fieldhouse has clearly experienced behavioural problems but submitted that they had to be considered in the context of broader, unaddressed mental health issues. Ms Tassone summarised the position in the following terms:[9]
We can see throughout the history there is a lot of, since 2016 when he came to be the subject of the index offending, and then the sheer number of psychiatrists and medical professionals that tried to assist both him and the court when writing the reports, is that he has been medicated on a lot of different medication. I think again that’s been an issue, even whilst in custody. He’s taken off medication, put on medication.
[9] 29 November 2024 T18.
By way of illustration, Ms Tassone focussed on the period of time during which Mr Fieldhouse was admitted to James Nash House. She said that on that occasion, having been returned to custody, Mr Fieldhouse’s mental health started to deteriorate, the behavioural problems commenced resulting in him being “locked down” for an extended period to which he responded by refusing to eat. He was then admitted to James Nash House for 16 days during which time he was seen by a psychiatrist and medicated.

During this hearing, Mr Fieldhouse also addressed me directly about his mental health. Given it demonstrated a level of insight, I set out the exchange in full:[10]
RESPONDENT:   Excuse me, your Honour, I think what I’ve got is, I go manic and stuff. Like, I’m trying to get diagnosed properly now, and get on the proper medication and stay off the drugs - just do the right thing, you know what I mean? I fuckin’, I don’t want my life to be fucked up, you know what I mean? Like, I’m starting to realise that I’ve got some mental health issues and that. I need to address them. I need to get on the proper medication, and I just, I’m not diagnosed properly what I am. I been going manic and stuff, like, and obviously the meth and that hasn’t been helping, you know what I mean? I need to take meth never again.
HER HONOUR:   Mr Fieldhouse, if there’s one bit of advice I can give you, that is, meth will not help.
RESPONDENT:   Yeah, and I don’t want to ever take it ever again in my life, you know? I just, yeah, I where to start. Like, I don’t know, I don’t know how - like my thoughts are just, yeah. At the moment I’ve been like just deteriorating, my mental health, like, and 1 I’m just trying to figure out how I’m going to sort it out. Like, that’s why I walked into ..., ‘cos I hadn’t slept, like, in days. I went manic, and I thought ‘Aren’t I supposed to be coming home to this unit?’ Like, you know, I don’t understand what’s going on with me at the moment. Like, I just, yeah, I need to get on the right medication and just, you know, stay away from the all the drugs. The places that they’re putting me is like, they’re no good. Like, you’re filled with meth and that, like you get people come and offer it to you. Like, at St Vinnies and that, it’s fuckin’ everywhere. It’s like, it’s an addiction, it’s hard to stop, do you know what I mean, like - now I just really want to stop it, like, and just do the right thing. I don’t fuckin’ want my life to end and be all fucked up because of fuckin’ drugs, do you know what I mean? I didn’t know how serious this could get, like, fuckin’ –
[10] 29 November 2024 T27-28.
By the end of this hearing, it had become apparent that central to the determination of the application for a CDO, were issues relating to Mr Fieldhouse’s mental health and access to medication, particularly if released into the community. There was very limited information before me on those topics, and in particular about what had occurred whilst at James Nash House and what treatment regime had been in place since Mr Fieldhouse’s return to Yatala. A further adjournment was necessary to enable the parties to obtain the relevant records.
11 December 2024
On 11 December 2024, submissions resumed. By this occasion counsel had access to the majority of Mr Fieldhouse’s James Nash House and Prison Mental Health records.
I was advised that as a consequence of exhibiting some concerning behaviour, on 14 July 2024 Mr Fieldhouse was again admitted to the Lyell McEwen Hospital. On 15 July 2024, he was returned to Yatala because of the unavailability of mental health hospital beds. He was admitted to James Nash House on 19 July 2024, where he remained until 5 August 2024.
The records note that when he arrived at James Nash House, Mr Fieldhouse was initially agitated, however gradually calmed down over the following days. Whilst there, Mr Fieldhouse was treated by Dr Burgess and was prescribed and administered by depot injection, paliperidone, a drug used to treat Schizophrenia. The drug appeared to have the desired effect as Mr Fieldhouse’s symptoms resolved.
During the course of submissions, Ms Tassone provided the Court with some notes written by Mr Fieldhouse during the latter part of his stay at James Nash House, which she described as “reflections”. It was submitted that these notes demonstrate that during periods of clarity Mr Fieldhouse does have a level of insight into his circumstances. Whilst there is some force to that submission, it is a matter of concern that as late as July 2024, Mr Fieldhouse (in writing these reflections) was still maintaining that he did not have a mental illness.
The final separation summary from James Nash House prepared by Dr Amisha Jayawart states:
Schizophrenia or an affective psychosis - diagnosis will need to be clarified with ongoing mental health treatment, Jake’s psychosis was initially believed to be drug-induced, however based on extended observation during this (his first) Inpatient psychiatric admission, his presentation is consistent with a primary psychotic illness with a prominent affective component.
Dr Jayawart continued:
This is on a background of strong genetic predisposition (both grandmothers have affective disorder, one required ECT), and Jake’s history of polysubstance use - particularly his ongoing use of medicinal cannabis, that exacerbates his psychosis.
Dr Jayawart concluded by opining that at that time Mr Fieldhouse’s risk of harm to self and others was low with no expressions, intentions or behaviours of concern. He was requesting a return to prison.
Dr Jayawart also made a recommendation of “cessation of medical cannabis and strongly suggest abstinence from cannabis be included as part of any future legal limitations”.
There is no clear explanation for the deterioration in Mr Fieldhouse’s mental health that resulted in him being admitted to James Nash House. Dr Lake accepted that there was no evidence that Mr Fieldhouse had consumed drugs at this time. It is not possible to definitively say that this was another drug-induced psychosis, particularly given that Mr Fieldhouse had been in confinement in G Division for a number of weeks, where it is less likely that he would have access to illicit substances.
It was Ms Tassone’s submission that the explanation for the deterioration was in the circumstances in which Mr Fieldhouse found himself, having yet again been incarcerated. He had been placed in G Division and had stopped eating. He had ceased taking buvidal, which had been prescribed to him at a relatively high dose to manage opioid withdrawals. Ms Tassone explained that then had the flow on effect of Mr Fieldhouse being unable to sleep and lose his appetite.
On his return to Yatala, Mr Fieldhouse ceased taking the paliperidone however he did continue to attend appointment with Dr Burgess. The first appointment took place on 29 August 2024. At that appointment it was noted that Mr Fieldhouse was insistent that he did not have a mental illness and wanted to stop any medication. At that appointment Mr Fieldhouse also provided Dr Burgess with an explanation of what had led to his admission at James Nash House. He said he had not been himself, he had come off buvidal and suffered from sleep deprivation.
Of note, during that appointment Dr Burgess asked Mr Fieldhouse about the circumstances of the most recent charges. Dr Burgess noted Mr Fieldhouse’s response as “Drugs: a bit of meth, three points a fortnight; and THC on the outside”.
Mr Fieldhouse next saw Dr Burgess on 9 September 2024. By this occasion it would appear that Mr Fieldhouse was more accepting of the fact that he had mental health issues for which he required assistance. Dr Burgess recorded:
Agrees he has psychosis, although minimised and justified his admission. Denied current symptoms. He recalls some odd thoughts when unwell, thoughts that he was going to get a King’s pardon. Could have been a batch of bad gear, THC withdrawal, and Buvidal withdrawal.
Whilst this entry would appear to suggest that Mr Fieldhouse had used drugs in custody at about that time, that appears at odds with the drug testing results and the account that Mr Fieldhouse has provided to others.
A plausible explanation for what Dr Burgess has recorded may be that Mr Fieldhouse conflated what occurred on his most recent arrest with what has transpired since he has been in custody.
During this appointment the issue of medication was revisited. Mr Fieldhouse told Dr Burgess that he hated the depot injections and said he would rather take “oral medication”.
Under the heading “Impression”, Dr Burgess recorded “Resolved Psychosis, ?D.I.P, vs underlying illness, on a background of Substance Use Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder”. Dr Burges noted that it would be reasonable to attempt to trial voluntary treatment before committing to involuntary depot injections, which is likely to be quite traumatic for Mr Fieldhouse and difficult to enforce.
Dr Burgess saw Mr Fieldhouse again on 4 November 2024. On this occasion Mr Fieldhouse denied any common symptoms of psychosis, including auditory hallucinations, referential ideas, thought interference or paranoia.
The next development in the chronology of events is that on 23 November 2024, Mr Fieldhouse presented at the health clinic “heavily responding to internal stimuli”. As a consequence of how he presented, a drug screening test was carried out. It came back as positive to THC, amphetamine, benzodiazepine and buprenorphine.
It was apparent from Mr Fieldhouse’s reaction in court that the first time that he had heard about these test results was when Dr Lake made submissions about them. He vehemently denied having consumed the drugs in question.
Given Mr Fieldhouse’s apparently genuine reaction, I requested that Dr Lake make some further enquiries about the nature of the testing that had been undertaken.
Dr Lake made those enquiries and was advised that the relevant test was a drug screen voluntarily undertaken by Mr Fieldhouse as a first step in ascertaining whether his unusual presentation related to his underlying mental health issues or if there was an illicit drug component to it. Dr Lake was also advised that given that it was a screening test, there is the potential for false positive results. No confirmatory testing has been undertaken. In those circumstances, I do not propose to rely on this test result.
On 8 December 2024, observations were made by DCS staff of Mr Fieldhouse behaving strangely, appearing vague and “spaced out”. He was again tested for drugs. The results of that testing were not available at the time of delivering this judgment.
18 December 2024
On 18 December 2024, the matter last came before me for submissions. Counsel for both parties made further submissions summarising their respective positions. During these submissions, Mr Fieldhouse again took the opportunity to speak to me directly. In the middle of an exchange with Ms Tassone about why Mr Fieldhouse had come off medication whilst in Yatala, Mr Fieldhouse interjected and said:[11]
I was on the depot injection for a few months, then I was on the oral medication, they took me off the depot, because I didn’t like the injection. I said ‘Listen I’ll take the medication’, I understand I wasn’t well, and that’s what the big problem was because at James Nash, I wasn’t accepting that I wasn’t well, I kept saying there was nothing wrong with me because I thought there was nothing wrong, like, I just wasn’t, yeah, and then, then I come off it completely and I was fine. You know what I mean, I was doing really well for a bit and then now I’ve just had a hiccup where it was like, you know, I wasn’t doing too well again for the last little bit.
[11] 18 December 2024 T8.
Mr Fieldhouse described being proactive in seeking out medication to assist with his mental health issues. He explained:[12]
Yeah, because I went and seen him and I said ‘Listen, I don’t think I’m doing too good again’, and I want to address this issue as well, I don’t want to keep getting in trouble. Like the stuff that I’m getting in trouble for, I’m not actually out trying to do crime like, do you know what I mean? Like I don’t actually want to be in gaol all the time. Like do you know what I mean? I think it is a lot to do now, I’m starting to get a bit older and realise that a lot of it is probably to do with mental health and perhaps substance abuse, you know. I don’t want to be doing that stuff any more, like you know.
And further:[13]
Yeah, I don’t like - it’s still the early stages, so like we’re still - because I think it’s more the psychosis, you know what I mean? I’m not too sure. But I think Dr Burgess said if I could stay in Yatala, I would see him again in a few weeks, the doctor said, to check up on me, but I’m not sure whether I get out, I don’t know. I’ll probably - if I could I would probably still work with him because I’ve been working with him, do you know what I mean?
[12] 18 December 2024 T8-9.
[13] 18 December 2024 T9.
Consideration
It is not disputed that Mr Fieldhouse has mental health issues for which he needs to receive medication and treatment.
Regardless of whether I grant the application for a CDO, Mr Fieldhouse will be released into the community on 13 March 2025. The community is best protected by Mr Fieldhouse receiving appropriate treatment and support that will assist him to cease offending.
Mr Fieldhouse has demonstrated that he can comply with an ESO when appropriate levels of supports are in place. Mr Fieldhouse is currently prescribed with medication that he appears to be compliant in taking. I am told that there is employment available to Mr Fieldhouse with the Frontline Recruitment Agency. He has a friend who works for that business and that same friend has offered to support and assist him getting to and from work.
This is a complex matter, in that I fully accept that Mr Fieldhouse has repeatedly demonstrated the patten of behaviour alleged by the Attorney-General. He no doubt has pre-existing mental health issues that are exacerbated when he uses drugs, resulting is risk taking psychotic episodes. However, Mr Fieldhouse cannot lawfully be kept in custody past 13 March 2025. At the moment Mr Fieldhouse is taking medication and showing a level of insight into his mental health needs that has not previously been present. If released on an ESO, he will have the support of a Supervising Officer, in the context of also having the offer of support from a friend and a job available to him.
It is also open to me, on an application made by the Attorney-General, to vary the ESO conditions such that they provide Mr Fieldhouse with more tailored support.
One of the further additional conditions suggested by the Attorney-General is home detention with electronic monitoring. In my view, for Mr Fieldhouse, such a condition would be too restrictive, counterproductive and would set him up to fail. There are better means by which to appropriately afford the community greater protection.
For the reasons that I have set out, I do not propose to make the CDO, but I foreshadow that I will instead grant an application by the Attorney-General to vary the current terms of the ESO to include the following conditions:
●Mr Fieldhouse must consult with a general practitioner to obtain a mental health plan and see a psychologist or psychiatrist on a regular basis as directed by his service provider or his Supervising Officer; and
●Mr Fieldhouse must sign all necessary forms to allow the sharing of personal information as between the various service providers to ensure that each provider is aware of Mr Fieldhouse’s mental health presentation, history, treatment and drug testing results; and
●Mr Fieldhouse must advise his Supervising Officer if he ceases to take any medication prescribed to him; and
●Mr Fieldhouse is prohibited from consuming cannabis, even if prescribed by a legally qualified medical practitioner.