Clague v Secretary, Department of Health

[2014] VCC 164

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR-12-01615

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE CRIMES (MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED) ACT 1997

and

IN THE MATTER OF: 

MATTHEW JOHN CLAGUE

and

IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW OF A NON-CUSTODIAL SUPERVISION ORDER

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR CHIEF JUDGE ROZENES
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 February 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Clague v Secretary, Department of Health
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 164

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

---

Catchwords:  Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Review of non-custodial supervision order – order confirmed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Reviewee	Mr M. Dempsey	Victoria Legal Aid
For the DPP	Ms J. Carpenter
For the Department of Health	Mr D. Bruno	Ms L. Clarke
For the Attorney-General	Mr M. McLay	Ms L. Chesswas

HIS HONOUR:

1   This was the first review of a Non-Custodial Supervision Order imposed by me on 6 March 2013.

2   All parties were represented and urged me to confirm the existing Order and to fix a date for further review.  Mr Dempsey, representing Mr Clague, foreshadowed that, given his positive progress thus far he would be making an application for revocation of the Non-Custodial Supervision Order at the time of the next review.

3   I have read the affidavit of Julie Carpenter sworn 21 February 2014, and the reports of Dr Grant Lester, Exhibit A; Dr Akshay Ilango, Exhibit B; and Ms Eleanor Fowler, Exhibit C.  I have also read the written submissions provided to me by the parties.

4   Oral evidence was given by Dr Lester, Dr Ilango and Ms Fowler in respect of Mr Clague’s progress over the past 12 months.  It was clear that Mr Clague has been compliant with his medication, has attended all appointments as directed, and has been abstinent from illicit drugs and alcohol. He continues to be in full remission, and is currently not displaying any symptoms of his bipolar affective disorder.  He continues to have the support of his family, especially his mother and sister, and is instrumental in the care and supervision of his young nephews.

5   Whist he faces a potential stressor in the next 12 months, namely relocation to shared accommodation, he will be appropriately and adequately supported in this transition by his treating doctors and support workers.

6   It was agreed by the parties that a period of 12 months would enable an further assessment of Mr Clague’s continued response to treatment and, in particular, an insight into his response to a change in his living situation.  Both factors are relevant to any future assessment of the stability of Mr Clague’s illness, especially in light of the application for revocation of the Non-Custodial Supervision Order that was foreshadowed by Mr Dempsey.

7   I am satisfied that the Non-Custodial Supervision Order should be confirmed and I do so.  I propose a further review of the Order in no later than 18 months from this day.

8   I order as follows:

i.    That the Non-Custodial Supervision Order made on 6 March 2013 be confirmed and I fix, as a date for review, that the Non-Custodial Supervision Order be brought back before the Court for review no later than 18 months from this day; and

ii.    I reserve liberty to apply to the parties upon reasonable notice by the party applying to the court.