CN
[2025] WASAT 85
•26 AUGUST 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: CN [2025] WASAT 85
MEMBER: MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD: 21 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED : 21 AUGUST 2025
PUBLISHED : 26 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S: GAA 4668 of 2025
CN
Represented Person
THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE
Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship - Application for a warrant to enter premises - Represented person removed from aged care facility by family member - Historic risk of family violence - Significant risk to represented person's health and safety - Issues for Tribunal to determine - Considerations to guide exercise of discretion to issue warrant - Conditions on warrant
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 4(7), s 41, s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 49, s 49(1), s 49(2), s 49(3), s 49(4), s 51(2), s 89, s 110H, s 115
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 32(4)
Result:
Warrant issued
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
CT and ALT [2014] WASAT 42
Public Advocate and TLG-B [2015] WASAT 108
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary
CN is aged in her late 70s. She has diagnoses of dementia, post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and several physical health issues. CN's 19-year-old granddaughter EL removed CN from her Nursing Home on Friday 15 August 2025 without consent or CN's medication. CN's guardian, the Public Advocate, filed this urgent application under s 49 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) seeking a warrant to enter premises to locate CN.
On Monday 18 August 2025, the WA Police (Police) and St John's Ambulance (Ambulance) attended 'Address 1' to take CN to hospital at the request of the Public Advocate. However, EL did not allow CN to leave. When the Police left, EL moved CN to a new location. The Public Advocate believes CN is currently at 'Address 2'.
On Tuesday, EL stopped answering telephone calls from the Public Advocate. On Wednesday, two guardians from the Office of the Public Advocate went to Address 2 and knocked on the door repeatedly and called out, but no one answered. The guardians could hear a woman's voice inside, who they believed to be EL. The application for the warrant was filed on Wednesday afternoon.
Given the concerns for CN's welfare and the fact that EL had already moved CN once, the matter was listed for an urgent ex parte hearing on the morning of Thursday 21 August 2025 (Hearing).
I was satisfied that it was appropriate to issue the warrant sought by the Public Advocate to enter Address 2 due to serious risks to CN's health and safety relating to:
(a)the historic family domestic violence, neglect and elder abuse concerns described in documents filed with the Tribunal;
(b)CN's high care needs, numerous medical conditions and EL's apparent lack of insight into CN's dementia diagnosis; and
(c)EL's refusal to engage with the guardian to discuss CN's care.
I issued the warrant at the Hearing and indicated that I would provide written reasons for my decision. These are my reasons.
Legal framework
The primary concern of the Tribunal when making decisions under the GA Act is the best interests of the person for whom the application was made.[1] When considering any matter relating to a represented person, the Tribunal:[2]
… shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of the person concerned as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from the person's previous actions.
[1] GA Act, s 4(2).
[2] GA Act, s 4(7).
It is clear from the documents filed with the Tribunal, discussed further below, that historically CN has not wanted to live in residential aged care. However, a guardian's role is not to give effect to a represented person's wishes; it is to give them weight and balance when considering decisions within the guardian's authority.
While it might seem drastic that the wishes of the represented person can be displaced by a decision of the guardian, the guardian must make decisions in the best interests of the represented person, and must take those wishes into account as far as possible.[3] Further, the GA Act requires that a guardianship order can only be made if the Tribunal is satisfied that the represented person is:[4]
(a)unable to care for themselves;
(b)unable to make reasonable judgments about their personal matters; or
(c)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of their health and safety or for the protection of others; and
(d)in need of a guardian.
[3] GA Act, s 51(2). Section 110H of the GA Act prescribes that s 51 also applies to guardians appointed pursuant to an enduring power of guardianship.
[4] GA Act, s 43(1)(b) - (c).
The power of the Tribunal to issue a warrant to enter premises is provided by s 49 of the GA Act which states:
(1)If the occupier or person in charge of premises refuses to allow a guardian to enter those premises -
(a) where the represented person is in the premises, for the purpose of performing any function in relation to the represented person; or
(b) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the represented person is in those premises,
the guardian may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a warrant to enter those premises.
(2)If upon an application under subsection (1) the State Administrative Tribunal is satisfied that it is necessary for the guardian to enter those premises as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, it may issue a warrant authorising the guardian to enter the premises by force if necessary during a particular period or at any time, as the warrant may specify.
(3)A guardian executing a warrant under subsection (2) may be assisted by such persons as [they think] necessary, including a police officer or police officers.
(4)A person shall not, without reasonable cause, obstruct or hinder a person acting under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2).
Penalty: $1 000.
The power to issue a warrant to enter is rarely exercised. There are only two reported decisions of the Tribunal in relation to s 49, which are discussed in these reasons. I understand that this is only the third warrant to be issued pursuant to s 49, either by the Guardianship and Administration Board or the Tribunal, since the GA Act commenced in 1992.
Notice is not required for applications under s 49 of the GA Act.[5] The nature of these applications means that it is likely that orders will be sought on an urgent basis when there is a risk to the health and safety of the represented person. Therefore, whether personal service or notice of the hearing is given, and who would receive such notice, is at the discretion of the Member hearing the matter based on the facts of the case.
[5] The only sections of the GA Act that require notice to be given to the parties are sections 41 and 89 which require notice of at least 14 days before a hearing of an application for guardianship or administration or a review of a guardianship or administration order respectively. Section 115 of the GA Act mandates the represented person or proposed represented person receiving personal service of those applications.
Personal service of the application for the warrant was given to the represented person, TLG-B, in Public Advocate and TLG-B[6] (TLG-B). That application involved the plenary guardian seeking to enter TLG-B's premises with contractors to perform urgent and essential works (Works) due to the immediate risk to TLG-B's life, health and safety. The requirement for notice is evident the context of the execution of the warrant involving contractors remaining in TLG-B's home for several hours and TLG-B living with schizoaffective disorder.
[6] Public Advocate and TLG-B [2015] WASAT 108.
The Tribunal may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit, and is not bound by rules of evidence, which ensures, as far as possible, that all relevant information can be considered by the Tribunal when making decisions in the represented person's best interests.[7]
[7] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2) and s 32(4).
Issues
The five issues the Tribunal must determine in an application for a warrant are:
1.Does the applicant have standing to apply for a warrant?
2.Was the guardian refused entry to the premises by the occupier when attempting to ascertain if the represented person was there or to perform any function of the guardian?
3.Is it necessary to enter the premises?
4.Should the discretion be exercised to issue the warrant?
5.What should the terms of the warrant be?
Standing
A guardian appointed by the Tribunal or pursuant to an enduring power of guardianship can apply for a warrant.[8]
Entry must be refused by the occupier
[8] GA Act, s 110H.
The occupier or person in charge of the premises must have refused to allow the guardian to enter the premises either:
(a)to ascertain whether the represented person is in the premises; or
(b)if the represented person is in the premises, so the guardian can perform any function the guardian is authorised to perform in relation to the represented person.
The ordinary meaning of 'occupier' is a person having the legal right to reside, or who is residing, in a house or on land.[9] 'Entry' means to access or the permission or right to enter.[10] 'Refuse' means to decline to accept, to decline to give or to decline acceptance, consent or compliance.[11]
[9] Macquarie Dictionary (2013): 'occupier'.
[10] Macquarie Dictionary (2013): 'entry'.
[11] Macquarie Dictionary (2013): 'refuse'.
In CTandALT,[12] the Tribunal did not issue a warrant as the applicants had not asked to enter the premises where the represented person was located, and as such, had not been 'refused' entry.
It must be necessary to enter
[12] CT and ALT [2014] WASAT 42 (CT and ALT).
The Tribunal must be satisfied that it is necessary for the guardian to enter the premises to either ascertain if the represented person is there or to perform an authorised function. What is or is not necessary is always decided on a case-by-case basis, noting that a warrant provides the authority to override the long-established common law principle that an occupier of premises is entitled to exclude others and an unauthorised entry would constitute trespass. In CTandALT, the Full Tribunal noted that:[13]
… orders of the nature of a warrant to enter premises can by their nature be extremely intrusive. Accordingly, where an application is made for the issue of a warrant on an urgent basis and without giving the other parties an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal must be persuaded that there is an actual risk to the safety of the represented person that necessitates proceeding in this way.
Discretion to issue warrant
[13] CT and ALT at [24].
Section 49(4) creates a criminal offence for a person, without reasonable cause, to obstruct or hinder a person acting under the authority of a warrant issued under s 49. Accordingly, a warrant should be a measure of last resort.
In TLG-B, Parry J set out the following four non-exhaustive considerations that are relevant in guiding the exercise of the discretion to issue a warrant to enter premises:[14]
28First, whether the achievement of the purpose for which the warrant is sought is in the best interests of the represented person.
29Secondly, whether there is any less coercive and intrusive alternative to a warrant to achieve the purpose for which the warrant is sought.
30Thirdly, whether all reasonable efforts have been made to achieve the purpose of which the warrant is sought without the need for a warrant.
31Fourthly, whether the likely positive consequences of issuing the warrant outweigh any likely negative consequences.
Terms of the warrant
[14] TLG-B at [28] - [31].
Section 49 provides that the warrant may specify whether it is to be executed during a particular period of time or at any time. The Member hearing the matter therefore has a wide discretion as to the terms of the warrant, which will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In TLG-B, the Tribunal imposed multiple conditions in the execution of the warrant. The Public Advocate was required to give written notice to TLG-B of the date and time of the proposed entry to perform the Works, which was to occur within two weeks. The Public Advocate was to supervise the entry to the premises and the carrying out of the Works. Further, any repairs necessitated by a forcible entry to the premises were to be completed at the same time as the Works by contractors appointed by TLG-B's administrator, the Public Trustee.
I will next examine the factual background of CN's matter before determining each issue.
CN's previous Tribunal proceedings
The Tribunal heard three applications in relation to CN within a five‑month period in 2023. The periodic review of the current orders is scheduled for 25 August 2025. The Tribunal therefore holds a significant number of documents authored by medical and allied health professionals that have been, or are currently, involved in CN's care.
I have taken into account the oral evidence given at the Hearing by the representatives of the Public Advocate in attendance and all the written evidence held by the Tribunal in relation to CN. The relevant features of the evidence I accept are summarised in these reasons.
First application in June 2023
Hospital F made the first application to the Tribunal in June 2023 while CN was an inpatient. CN was living in her Department of Housing home at Address 2 with her son KE, who was her sole carer. When he was incarcerated, he asked the Police to do a welfare check. The Police observed that CN could not operate a telephone and would not be able to access help in an emergency while home alone. The Police concluded that CN was not managing at home and took her to Hospital F.
Dr M diagnosed likely Alzheimer's Dementia on a background of vulnerable personality structure due to recurrent trauma throughout CN's life, which was likely now exacerbated by a cognitive impairment.[15] CN told the social worker at Hospital F that she had 11 children and she was estranged from ten of them.[16] CN described feeling rejected from her family in the context of chronic family dysfunction. CN would give her money away and will then go without essentials for herself such as food.[17]
[15] Medical report prepared by geriatrician Dr M dated 1 June 2023.
[16] Service provider report prepared by social worker Mr H dated 25 May 2023. However the ACAT assessment prepared in July 2023 states that CN has nine children and three have predeceased her and the service provider report dated 18 September 2023 states that two of her children were incarcerated.
[17] Service provider report prepared by social worker Mr H dated 25 May 2023.
By the time of the hearing, KE had been released from prison on home detention bail so he could continue to care for CN. The Tribunal was satisfied that CN was a person for whom a guardianship order could be made and appointed KE as CN's limited guardian on 15 June 2023 with the following functions:
(a)to decide where she is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)to decide with whom she is to live;
(c)to make treatment decisions for her, subject to Div 3 of Pt 5 of the GA Act;
(d)to determine the services to which she should have access; and
(e)to decide whether to give or withhold consent to the use of any restrictive practices proposed CN from time to time in compliance with Pt 4A of the Quality of Care Principles 2014 made pursuant to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth).
Second application in September 2023
Three months later, the Health Department sought a review of the orders while CN was an inpatient at Hospital S. In early September, KE moved his partner (of several days) into Address 2 and began using illicit substances. EL raised concerns that KE had been neglecting CN's basic care needs, such as he was failing to provide CN with food and medication, and he was becoming increasingly verbally aggressive. KE tested positive on a drug test (negative drug tests were a condition of his home arrest) and was taken into custody, leaving CN in EL's care, who was then aged 17.[18]
[18] Letter from complex care coordinator Ms P dated 11 September 2023.
Two days later, CN was admitted to Hospital S after EL became concerned about CN's aggressive behaviour. The handover from the Ambulance stated that CN had become increasingly aggressive, paranoid and she was refusing food and medication.[19]
[19] Letter from complex care coordinator Ms P dated 11 September 2023.
Documents filed by the applicant report that KE was difficult to contact and had not arranged an aged care assessment team (ACAT) assessment for CN. However, in-home aged care services would not have been able to assist CN in any event due to the safety risks for providers related to KE's history of violent offending and drug use.[20]
[20] Letter from complex care coordinator Ms P dated 11 September 2023, ACAT assessment dated 12 July 2023 prepared while CN was an inpatient in Hospital B and the service provider report of Ms P dated 18 September 2023.
The report filed by the complex care co-ordinator Ms P stated, in terms of the family conflict:[21]
... [CN's] granddaughter [EL] is a minor and is under the care of DCP. This relationship has been a recent source of distress for [CN] and during her admission to [Hospital F] she has requested that [EL] not contact her.
[BN] is [CN's] ex-husband and during their marriage was the perpetrator of family domestic violence. This relationship is also a source of distress for [CN] and she has previously expressed concern regarding his involvement in her care.
[21] Service provider report of Ms P dated 18 September 2023.
Ms P's view was that CN needed 24/7 care but no family members could appropriately and reliably provide the level of support required. It was recommended that CN move into residential aged care.
The order appointing KE as guardian was revoked at the hearing of 28 September 2023 and the Public Advocate was appointed as CN's guardian with the same functions as set out above at [30]. The order was to be reviewed before 28 September 2025.
Third application in November 2023
Around two weeks after that hearing, CN was reported as a missing person. She had run away from home because she wanted to escape from BN, who was in her home.[22] CN was found by police and taken to the emergency department of Hospital G.
[22] Letter from social worker Ms B dated 14 November 2023.
Hospital G sought a further review of the guardianship order to include a medical restraint function as the Public Advocate had decided to transfer CN from Hospital G to residential care. Two unsuccessful attempts at transferring CN had been made, so as a last resort, Hospital G considered that they may:[23]
… require the use of pharmacological sedation to facilitate care including transfer to residential care as well as to provide long term medical treatment in her best interest including treatment of her hypercalcaemia secondary to hyperparathyroidism
[23] Letter from Dr L or Hospital G filed on 15 November 2023.
At the hearing of 16 November 2023, the Public Advocate was reappointed as CN's guardian with the additional function, commonly referred to as 'restraint in other settings', to allow the guardian:
to give or withhold consent to the use of restraint to give effect to a decision of the guardian made pursuant to these orders and in the interests of the represented person's health and safety, on the following basis:
(i)where restraint is proposed, a medical plan must be developed setting out the purpose and circumstances under which restraint is to be used. The plan must be approved by a medical practitioner and, if it remains in place, be regularly reviewed; and
(ii)a decision to use restraints should be made only after all reasonably available less restrictive alternatives have been considered and found not to be successful.
Senior guardian Ms R gave evidence the Hearing that to date, this function has not been utilised by the Public Advocate.
The review date of the new guardianship order was set for 28 September 2025. However, the review hearing has been urgently brought forward to be heard on 25 August 2025.
Review hearing scheduled for 25 August 2025
The documents filed as part of the periodic review provide an update and summary of CN's recent history.
An ACAT assessment performed on 4 March 2025 at Hospital F cites CN's confirmed diagnoses of PTSD and dementia with the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. CN also has atrial fibrillation and supraventricular tachycardia, which are both heart conditions, high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, depression, anxiety, elevated cholesterol, osteoporosis and insomnia. The ACAT notes that multiple family members are known to police in relation to elder abuse towards CN, and that there is to be no contact with family members without prior discussion with the guardian.
The ACAT states that CN's cognitive impairment impacts her function and independence as she is forgetful, repetitive and often gets confused. She requires support to manage medications, meals and her personal care. CN has difficulty managing her emotions and can be intrusive and impulsive. Her trauma response means that she does not like personal care being attended to and she has poor sleep, flashbacks and nightmares.
In March 2025, CN moved into the Nursing Home. Ms R gave evidence that the Department of Housing lease for Address 2 was transferred into KE's name when CN moved out. To the best of Ms R's knowledge, EL has continued to live at Address 2. I accept the evidence of Ms R.
The Service Manager at the Nursing Home, Mr M, noted that CN's mood and behaviour would change during EL's visits.[24] While CN appeared to enjoy the visits, she would often be emotionally unsettled after the visits, and withdrawn and irritable with other residents. Sometimes she would stop eating. EL would visit at inconvenient times, such as during communal dinner or late in the evening, disrupting the staff routines and the resident's privacy. EL is noted to be rude to staff and residents.
[24] Service provider report by Mr M dated 6 August 2025.
Ms L, a duty guardian from the Office of the Public Advocate, provided updated information at the Hearing from the Nursing Home about CN's support needs. CN ambulates using a 2-wheeled walker. She requires supervision for sitting and standing, and cannot be left alone when showering or toileting. She requires use of continence aids and assistance with washing, drying, dressing and undressing. CN can become physically agitated and wander in the Nursing Home and get lost. CN can present as verbally angry and demanding, with paranoia. She can be anxious, distressed and resistive to care. I accept this evidence from Ms L.
CN's current circumstances and removal from Nursing Home
Friday 15 August 2025
On Friday, EL attended the Nursing Home and asked to take CN out shopping and for dinner. This was the first request EL had made to take CN out of the Nursing Home, so staff called the Public Advocate to seek consent. The duty guardian, Ms L, advised EL that before she would be permitted to take CN out of the Nursing Home, they would like to meet with her on Monday to discuss the expectations around CN's safety while in the community. However, EL took CN out of the Nursing Home that evening and has not brought her back.
The Nursing Home made multiple calls to the Police over the weekend but no action was taken by the Police.
Monday 18 August 2025
The Public Advocate contacted EL on Monday to discuss CN's care. EL advised that she did not believe her grandmother had dementia and wanted to seek a second opinion. EL also alleged that the staff at the Nursing Home were neglecting CN.
The Public Advocate spoke with the Police, who agreed to undertake a welfare check. However, EL advised that she was no longer residing at Address 2 and would not provide her current address to the Public Advocate. The Police located CN at Address 1, which is the new residence of BN. The Public Advocate was advised that the family and their whereabouts are well known to the Police. The Ambulance also attended. The Police advised the Public Advocate that CN appeared well and they had no urgent concerns about stroke or heart failure risks.
As CN had not had medication for three days, the Public Advocate consented to removing CN from Address 1 to take her to hospital. EL did not agree for CN to be taken to hospital but she said she would take CN to see a general practitioner the next day. EL also agreed to attend the Nursing Home and collect one day of medication for CN. CN currently takes five medications each day; an anticoagulant, two cardiac medications and two psychiatric medications. Ms R gave evidence, which I accept, that CN also takes medication on an 'as needed' basis for agitation and sleep, although Ms R thought it unlikely that the Nursing Home would give EL the 'as needed' medications.
The Police told the Public Advocate that they had no power to enter Address 1 to remove CN and they required an order to specifically state that the Police can use necessary force to enter the premises. The paramedics advised Ms L that the family made threats to 'destroy the ambulance'. I accept Ms L's evidence.
Tuesday 19 August 2025
On Tuesday, EL attended the Nursing Home to collect a week of medication for CN, meaning that EL has medication up to and including 26 August 2025. The Public Advocate continued to try to speak with EL by telephone but was unsuccessful with EL's phone indicating 'the number you have dialled is not connected'.
Wednesday 20 August 2025
On Wednesday morning, two guardians from the Office of the Public Advocate, one of which was Ms L, attended Address 1 with the intention of discussing CN's situation with EL and performing the functions of the guardian.
When the guardians attended Address 1, they spoke with BN, who told them that once the Police and Ambulance left on Monday, EL ordered an Uber and moved CN to a different location. BN told the guardians he was not aware of CN's current location.
The guardians then attended Address 2. The guardians knocked on the door several times and called out to advise they were from the Office of the Public Advocate. The guardians heard a female voice inside saying 'I wonder who that is?' Ms L gave evidence, which I accept, that she believed the voice belonged to EL. No one came to the door, and all attempts at making contact went unanswered. The guardians heard a cough and noticed a strong smell of cigarette smoke coming from inside the home, indicating that someone inside was smoking. CN is a smoker.
That afternoon, the application for the warrant was filed.
I will next explore the issues the Tribunal must determine in an application for a warrant.
Standing
The Public Advocate is CN's guardian pursuant to the orders of 16 November 2023 and has standing to apply for a warrant.
Was the guardian refused entry by the occupier?
I am satisfied, and I find, that EL is the occupier or person in control of Address 2. The evidence before the Tribunal confirms that EL has lived at Address 2 since at least September 2023. I accept Ms L's evidence that she believed that she heard EL's voice at Address 2 and that she smelled cigarette smoke. It is highly likely that EL would have CN with her, and because CN smokes, I am satisfied that CN was with EL at Address 2 on 20 August.
I am satisfied that the purpose for which the Public Advocate was attending Address 2 was to ascertain whether CN was there and to perform the functions of the guardian in respect of making decisions about medical treatment and accommodation.
I am satisfied, and I find, that EL refused to allow the guardians to enter Address 2 when they repeatedly knocked on the door on 20 August and announced they were from the Office of the Public Advocate. EL declined to accept the guardians' request to enter Address 2 when she ignored their presence and did not answer the door.
Is it necessary to enter the premises?
I am satisfied, and I find, that it is necessary for the guardian to enter the premises. CN has a well-documented, complicated psychosocial history with complex family dynamics, family domestic violence and a significant cognitive impairment. She previously had poor living conditions at Address 2 with no access to food and risk of abuse by family, with multiple family members being known to the Police in relation to alleged elder abuse towards CN. CN was hospitalised in four hospitals within a five‑month period and recommendations have been made for around two years that she requires 24/7 care.
The Public Advocate is responsible for making decisions in CN's best interests to protect her health and safety, so it is necessary for the Public Advocate to enter Address 2 to ascertain whether CN is safe. Once the guardian has spoken to her and assessed her situation, it may be necessary to make further decisions, such as about medical treatment and where she should live, in the interests of CN's health and safety.
Should the discretion be exercised to issue the warrant?
Is the purpose of the warrant in CN's best interests?
The purpose of entering Address 2 is to ascertain if CN is there, and if so, possibly make decisions about medical treatment and accommodation. I am satisfied that:
(a)there are significant risks to CN's health and safety as she has several physical health conditions that require careful monitoring; and
(b)the Public Advocate cannot contact EL or CN to ascertain if CN is receiving the care and supervision she requires.
The overriding purpose for which the guardian will enter the premises, by force if necessary, is to protect CN's health and safety. I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that the purpose for which the warrant is sought is in CN's best interests.
Is there any less coercive or intrusive alternative?
The Public Advocate has attended Address 2 and been refused entry as no one will answer the door. Ms R gave evidence that EL mentioned that she would like to engage services to provide care to CN at home. However, EL is no longer contactable and there is no way for the Public Advocate to communicate with CN or EL to discuss the available options for assistance to keep CN safe. Further, engaging services may not be a realistic option due to the historic safety concerns in the home.
I accept the evidence of Ms R and I am satisfied, and I find, that all less coercive and intrusive means of achieving the purpose for which the warrant is sought have been attempted.
Have all reasonable efforts been made to achieve the purpose of the warrant?
I am satisfied, and I find, that all reasonable efforts have been made to achieve the purpose of the warrant. The Public Advocate has attended Address 1, Address 2 and has attempted telephone contact with EL, with no success.
Will the positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences?
The negative consequence of a forced entry to Address 2 is that it would be frightening for CN. She has advanced dementia and a significant background of violence and trauma. She is very frail and needs assistance to sit and stand, so if she panicked, she is at risk of a fall and injury. These are all considerations the guardian will take into account when executing the warrant.
In terms of positive consequences, CN will receive proper treatment and medication for her significant health issues if the warrant is executed and the guardian can assess her. If the guardian decides CN should live in the Nursing Home, she will receive the support, supervision and assistance she requires 24/7 from trained professionals. She will not be in physical danger from family violence or exposed to an unsafe environment. I accept the written evidence from 2023 which is summarised in these reasons that CN's family have historically been unable to care for her safely.
I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that the positive consequences of a possible forced entry to Address 2 will outweigh the negative consequences.
What should the terms of the warrant be?
The Public Advocate requested a period of 14 days to execute the warrant, to allow time to make the necessary arrangements with the Police and Ambulance. I have also made the warrant conditional on the Public Advocate providing EL and CN with a copy of the warrant and the orders of 16 November 2023 so they can understand the authority upon which the guardian can enter Address 2.
Determination
I am satisfied, and I find, that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion to issue the warrant to authorise the Public Advocate to enter Address 2, by force if necessary. I will make the following order.
Order
On an application by the Public Advocate pursuant to s 49 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) for a warrant to enter the premises located at [Address 2] (Premises) heard by Member R Bunney and on the Tribunal being satisfied that:
(a)the Public Advocate was appointed as the limited guardian of the represented person, [CN] on 16 November 2023;
(b)the represented person is in the Premises;
(c)the occupier or person in charge of the Premises has refused to allow the Public Advocate to enter the Premises for the purposes of:
(i)ascertaining whether the represented person is in the Premises; or
(ii)performing any function in relation to the represented person if the represented person is in the Premises; and
(d)it is necessary for the guardian to enter the Premises to perform the purposes mentioned in (i) and (ii) above,
it is on 21 August 2025 ordered that:
1.Pursuant to s 49(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) by this order a warrant is issued authorising the Public Advocate and any officer or employee of the Office of the Public Advocate to whom the Public Advocate has delegated her functions as guardian to enter the premises at [Address 2] by force if necessary and assisted by such persons as the Public Advocate or her delegated guardian thinks necessary, including police officers, in order to perform any of the functions of the Public Advocate provided for in the order of the Tribunal dated 16 November 2023 including but not limited to the functions of:
(a)deciding where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)deciding with whom the represented person is to live;
(c)making treatment decisions for the represented person; and
(d)giving consent to the use of restraint to give effect to a decision of the guardian made pursuant to the orders of 16 November 2023,
on the condition that:
(e)the warrant is executed within 14 days of the date of this order; and
(f)a copy of the warrant and the orders of 16 November 2023 are provided to the represented person and [EL] at the time the warrant is executed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
26 AUGUST 2025
0