EID

[2015] NSWCATGD 7

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	EID [2015] NSWCATGD 7
Hearing dates:	31 March 2015
Date of orders:	31 March 2015
Decision date:	31 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Guardianship Division
Before:	B Tearle, Senior Member (Legal)
Decision:	Guardianship order renewed for 18 months. Public Guardian appointed.
Catchwords:	FORENSIC PATIENT – guardianship, primary carer – conditional release – legal services.
Legislation Cited:	Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW),
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mr EID (person under guardianship) The Public Guardian
Representation:	Separate Representation
File Number(s):	43140
Publication restriction:	Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal’s proceedings (s 65, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What the Tribunal decided

1. The Tribunal reviewed the previous guardianship order for Mr EID made on 3 March 2014, and renewed it for a period of 18 months. The Tribunal reappointed the Public Guardian as Mr EID's guardian. The Tribunal varied the order, so that the Public Guardian now has the authority to make decisions for Mr EID about his accommodation.

Background

2. Mr EID, who is 72 years old, and who has a Korean background, was, at the time of the hearings on 3 March and 31 March 2015, detained as a forensic patient in a correctional facility hospital. Mr EID is currently serving a 15-year limiting term, arising from the murder of a work colleague in May 2009. The Supreme Court of NSW in August 2011 found Mr EID unfit to plead. Mr EID is reported to have cognitive impairment as a result of a traumatic brain injury he sustained in a motor vehicle accident in July 2009.

3. The Tribunal understands that Mr EID is estranged from his wife, daughter and son, who live in Western Australia.

4. Mr EID has been under guardianship since 25 November 2009, when the former Guardianship Tribunal made a guardianship order, and appointed the Public Guardian as his guardian. The Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) last reviewed Mr EID's guardianship order on 3 March 2014, and renewed it for a further 12 months. The Tribunal on 3 March 2014 reappointed the Public Guardian as his guardian, with the authority to make decisions concerning his accommodation, legal services and services.

5. On 25 November 2009, the former Guardianship Tribunal also made a financial management order, and committed the management of Mr EID's financial affairs to the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

What did the Tribunal have to decide?

6. The questions which the Tribunal must decide are:

• Is Mr EID someone for whom the Tribunal could make an order because he continues to have a disability which prevents him from being able to make important life decisions?

• Should the Tribunal make a further guardianship order and, if so, what order should it make?

• Who should be the guardian?

• How long should the order last?

Review adjourned on 3 March 2015

7. The Tribunal first convened on 3 March 2015 to review the previous guardianship order for Mr EID made on 3 March 2014. That hearing was conducted by telephone. The Tribunal then ordered that the review be adjourned for approximately four weeks, to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

8. Mr EID participated in the hearing on 3 March 2015 to only a very limited extent from the correctional facility hospital. He was supported by Ms MJH, Nursing Unit Manager of the Aged Care Unit at the correctional facility hospital. Mr EID did receive the Tribunal's telephone call but, because of his disabilities, he was unable to give his views to the Tribunal.

9. Ms KQL, Solicitor, Mental Health Advocacy Service, was present at the Tribunal's premises as the separate representative of Mr EID.

10. Mr LDR, an interpreter in the Korean language, was present at the correctional facility hospital, and assisted the participants throughout the hearing.

11. The Tribunal received a great deal of assistance from the detailed and thoughtful report prepared on 28 January 2015 on behalf of the Public Guardian by Ms RFC, Guardian. Ms KQL, Mr EID's separate representative, also prepared a detailed and thoughtful submission on 3 March 2015 to assist the Tribunal.

12. The Public Guardian recommended that Mr EID's current guardianship order should not be renewed. Ms RFC gave evidence, and made submissions, on 3 March 2015 in support of the Public Guardian's view that Mr EID's guardianship order may safely be allowed to lapse. On the other hand, Ms KQL, Mr EID's separate representative, expressed the view in her submission prepared on 3 March 2015 that the Tribunal should renew Mr EID's guardianship order. In her written submission, Ms KQL respectfully disagreed with the Public Guardian's view. Ms KQL noted that Mr EID wishes to leave the correctional facility hospital, if he is allowed to do so. Ms KQL recommended in her submission that the Tribunal should reappoint the Public Guardian, with the authority to make decisions for a further 12 months concerning Mr EID's accommodation, services and legal services.

13. There was quite some discussion on 3 March 2015 concerning the possibility of an application being made to the Mental Health Review Tribunal seeking conditional release for Mr EID. Ms KQL advised that it is a lengthy process to prepare a plan for conditional release. The process involves finding a secure nursing home placement, a community treating team, and an independent risk assessment, before the Mental Health Advocacy Service is able to file a Notice of Intent with the Mental Health Review Tribunal, seeking conditional release.

14. Ms KQL reported that Mr Mark Ierace SC is of the opinion that a conditional release application is an appropriate course of action for Mr EID's circumstances. Ms KQL intends to hold a further conference with Mr Ierace SC in April 2015. However, according to Ms KQL, Mr EID continues to be unable to give instructions.

15. Further, Ms KQL maintained that Mr EID lacks the capacity to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for conditional release. Ms KQL informed the Tribunal on 3 March 2015 that the Mental Health Advocacy Service may not, of itself, apply for conditional release on Mr EID's behalf. Instead, Ms KQL submitted that the Mental Health Advocacy Service would need to have instructions from a guardian before applying for conditional release on Mr EID's behalf.

16. Ms KQL then informed the Tribunal that she would wish the opportunity to reflect further on the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) and the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), before completing her advice to the Tribunal. Ms KQL confirmed that she sought an adjournment of the proceedings for that purpose.

17. Ms RFC at first indicated that she did not think that an adjournment of the current review would be necessary. Instead, Ms RFC saw merit in the Tribunal completing its review on 3 March 2015. Nevertheless, after some further thought, Ms RFC stated that the Public Guardian would not be opposed to an adjournment to enable Ms KQL to prepare further advice for the Tribunal.

18. The Tribunal indicated that it would welcome the views of the parties and participants, including the Public Guardian and Ms KQL, as to whether or not Mr EID might now need to have a guardian with the specific authority to decide whether or not to apply on his behalf to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for his conditional release.

19. The Tribunal on 3 March 2015 ordered that the review of the guardianship order in relation to Mr EID be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar, in approximately four weeks. The purposes of the adjournment were:

• to give Ms KQL the opportunity to reflect further on the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 and the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, before completing her advice to the Tribunal; and

• to enable the parties and participants, including the Public Guardian and Ms KQL, to consider the issue as to whether Mr EID might now need to have a guardian with the specific authority to decide whether or not to apply on his behalf to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for his conditional release.

20. The Tribunal on 3 March 2015 did not issue any formal directions. Nevertheless, the Tribunal encouraged Ms RFC, on behalf of the Public Guardian, and Ms KQL, Mr EID's separate representative, to liaise with each other before the hearing resumed. The Tribunal invited Ms RFC and Ms KQL to consider whether, with a shared focus on Mr EID's welfare and interests, they might succeed in finding at least some common ground on the important issues raised in the review of his guardianship order.

Conduct of the hearing on 31 March 2015

21. The review resumed on 31 March 2015. Mr EID again participated in the hearing to only a very limited extent by videoconference from the correctional facility hospital. He was supported by Ms MTU, Nursing Unit Manager of the Aged Care Unit at the correctional facility hospital. Ms KQL was present at the correctional facility hospital as the separate representative of Mr EID, and participated by videoconference.

22. Ms Z, an interpreter in the Korean language, was present at the correctional facility hospital, and assisted the participants throughout the hearing. However, the Tribunal records that the commencement of the hearing was delayed by some 55 minutes as a result of the late arrival of Ms Z at the correctional facility hospital.

23. The Public Guardian did not prepare any additional written material for consideration by the Tribunal for the purposes of the hearing on 31 March 2015. On the other hand, Ms KQL on 30 March 2015 prepared another thoughtful written submission in which she addressed the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 and the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

24. The Tribunal records that there were persistent difficulties with the telephone connection between the Tribunal and the Office of the Public Guardian during the hearing on 31 March 2015. Those telecommunication difficulties caused some inconvenience to the participants.

25. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision. The Tribunal was of the opinion that fairness to Mr EID himself, and to the other parties and participants, required the Tribunal to give considerable thought to the issues raised in these proceedings.

26. A list of the parties to the review and witnesses at the hearing is contained in an appendix to these Reasons for Decision [Appendix removed for publication].

Is Mr EID someone for whom the Tribunal could make a further order?

27. The Tribunal must first consider whether Mr EID is someone for whom the Tribunal could make a further order, because he continues to have a disability which prevents him from being able to make important life decisions.

28. When the Tribunal made its earlier guardianship orders for Mr EID, it accepted evidence that he had cognitive impairment as a result of a traumatic brain injury he sustained in a motor vehicle accident in July 2009.

29. Dr Y, a Geriatrician at the correctional facility hospital, confirmed during the hearing on 3 March 2015 that Mr EID has a severe brain injury, and his cognition has deteriorated over the past 12 to 18 months. Dr Y reported that Mr EID can only understand simple questions.

30. In Dr Y's view, Mr EID lacks the capacity to make decisions. However, Dr Y noted that Mr EID has expressed a desire to return to live in Western Australia. Dr Y told the Tribunal that Mr EID needs to be accommodated in a secure high care facility.

31. Dr Y reported on 3 March 2015 that Mr EID has been medically stable. Dr Y gave details of Mr EID's medication regime, which includes Risperidone to control his behaviour. Dr Y confirmed that Mr EID is unable to provide his own consent for his medications. However, at the moment, consent for the administration of his medication comes through the forensic mental health system.

32. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr EID continues to have a disability which prevents him making important life decisions. He is a person for whom the Tribunal could make a further guardianship order.

Should the Tribunal make a further guardianship order and, if so, what order should it make?

33. The Public Guardian recommended that Mr EID's current guardianship order should not be renewed. On the other hand, Ms KQL, Mr EID's separate representative, expressed the view in her submission prepared on 3 March 2015 that the Tribunal should renew Mr EID's guardianship order. Ms KQL recommended that the Tribunal should reappoint the Public Guardian, with the authority to make decisions for a further 12 months concerning Mr EID's accommodation, services and legal services.

34. During the later hearing on 31 March 2015, Ms KQL indicated that her views had changed, and that she now sought the reappointment of the Public Guardian with the sole function of accommodation.

35. The Tribunal sought to obtain Mr EID's views as to whether or not he wished to have a guardian, although the Tribunal readily appreciated that the extent of Mr EID's disability is such that he may not have understood the import of the question. Mr EID replied:

"I don't mind not having a guardian."

36. Ms KQL said that she doubted whether Mr EID understands the nature and functions of a guardian, even though she had explained these matters to him on at least 10 occasions. When Ms KQL asked Mr EID if he wanted someone to help him to arrange somewhere for him to live "outside of gaol," Mr EID replied on each occasion: "Yes, outside of gaol."

37. The Tribunal determined that Mr EID continues to need someone to make decisions on his behalf, and in his best interests. In short, Mr EID remains in need of a guardian. The reasons for the Tribunal's decision appear below in the context of the discussion of the functions of the guardian.

38. In reaching its decision, and to the extent to which this was possible, the Tribunal also took account of the matters outlined by Parliament in section 14 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), and in particular:

• the views of Mr EID;

• the importance of preserving Mr EID's particular cultural and linguistic environments; and

• the practicability of services being provided to Mr EID without the need for the making of such an order.

• What functions should the guardian have?

Accommodation

39. Mr EID was, at the time of the hearings on 3 March and 31 March 2015, detained as a forensic patient in the correctional facility hospital.

40. In her report prepared on 28 January 2015, Ms RFC stated that the Public Guardian had made a decision in January 2015 for Mr EID to accept a permanent placement in the dementia unit at the aged care facility, in Regional NSW. The Public Guardian made that decision in principle, pending any determination to be made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal when it next reviews Mr EID's status as a forensic patient. The Public Guardian understands that the next review is likely to take place in September 2015. It is not known, of course, whether the Mental Health Review Tribunal will grant Mr EID conditional release.

41. Ms RFC stated in her report that Dr X, Forensic Psychologist and Clinical Neuropsychologist, undertook an independent risk assessment in November 2014. Dr X was of the view that Mr EID will require accommodation in a secure high level facility, with access to 24-hour nursing care. Ms RFC noted that the aged care facility can provide that level of support. Ms RFC agreed during the hearing on 3 March 2015 that Mr EID does not have the capacity to make his own decisions concerning his accommodation.

42. Ms MJH, Nursing Unit Manager with the Aged Care Unit of the correctional facility hospital, gave evidence during the hearing on 3 March 2015 that the new management of the aged care facility had recently confirmed that Mr EID remains on the waiting list for a placement at that facility. Ms RFC confirmed that evidence on 3 March 2015.

43. In her written submission, Ms KQL respectfully disagreed with the Public Guardian's view. Ms KQL noted that Mr EID wishes to leave the correctional facility hospital, if he is allowed to do so. In Ms KQL's view, given that Mr EID is unable to consent to an accommodation placement, he still needs to have a guardian with the authority to make an accommodation decision.

44. After hearing from Ms KQL on this issue on 3 March 2015, Ms RFC insisted that the Public Guardian has already made the accommodation decision for Mr EID. During the hearing on 31 March 2015, Ms RFC again stated that the Public Guardian had made a decision in January 2015 for Mr EID to accept a permanent placement in the dementia unit at the aged care facility.

45. Ms RFC also noted that the Public Guardian would not, even if still appointed as Mr EID's guardian, sign the necessary papers for his placement in a supported accommodation facility. Ms RFC stated that that would be the role of the NSW Trustee and Guardian. Ms DNQ, Principal Legal Officer with the Office of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, confirmed on 31 March 2015 that the NSW Trustee and Guardian would sign the relevant papers, acting as Mr EID's financial manager. However, the NSW Trustee and Guardian would rely on an accommodation decision having been made by the Public Guardian, or by Mr EID himself.

46. Ms KQL informed the Tribunal that she had recently contacted the Director of Nursing of the aged care facility, Ms W, to seek confirmation that Mr EID is on the waiting list of that facility. Ms W indicated to Ms KQL that she needs the approval of the office of the current owner of that facility, before she could confirm that Mr EID is on the waiting list for the aged care facility.

47. Ms KQL noted that there remains some uncertainty surrounding what she regarded as a provisional offer from the aged care facility. In Ms KQL's view, Mr EID's treating team, and/or his legal representative, might still need to find an alternative placement for him.

48. Ms KQL also called attention to the following provisions of section 76G of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990:

(1) The authorised medical officer of a mental health facility in which a forensic patient is detained must, if the person is to be released or granted leave under this Part, take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the person and any primary carer of the person are consulted in relation to planning the person's release and leave and any subsequent treatment or other action considered in relation to the person.

(2) In planning the release of any such person and any subsequent treatment or other action considered in relation to any such person, the authorised medical officer must take all reasonably practicable steps to consult with agencies involved in providing relevant services to the person, any primary carer of the person and any dependent children or other dependants of the person.

49. Ms KQL submitted that, in the absence of a guardian, Mr EID does not have any primary carer with whom to liaise about his release arrangements. Ms KQL concluded that Mr EID still needs a guardian to make decisions concerning his accommodation.

50. The Tribunal attached particular weight to Ms KQL's exploration of the importance to Mr EID of having a primary carer. Under the Mental Health Act 2007, if a patient has a guardian, then the guardian is his or her primary carer [section 71(1)(a)]. The Tribunal took proper account of:

• the nature and extent of Mr EID's disability;

• the evidence that Mr EID is estranged from his wife, daughter and son, who live in Western Australia;

• the fact that no friend or family member is available to act as his primary carer, in the absence of a guardian; and

• the important role of a primary carer under section 76G of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

51. The Tribunal formed the view that, in the context of decisions about Mr EID's future accommodation, it will be very much in Mr EID's best interests for him to continue to have the benefit of a primary carer with whom the relevant authorised medical officer may consult in planning his release from the correctional facility hospital.

52. The Tribunal accepted the advice of Ms KQL that any offer of a placement for Mr EID at the aged care facility should be regarded as provisional at this stage, because it needs to be confirmed by the office of current owner of the aged care facility. The Tribunal also noted that, if Mr EID's guardianship order were to have ended on 31 March 2015, as proposed by the Public Guardian, then the Public Guardian's consent for Mr EID's placement at the aged care facility would have come to an end on the same day. It would not have been possible for Mr EID to be placed at the aged care facility at some future time under the authority of the Public Guardian's decision, if the authority of the Public Guardian had itself come to an end on 31 March 2015.

53. For these reasons, the Tribunal concluded that Mr EID continues to need to have a substitute decision-maker on matters relating to accommodation.

Legal Services: function not required

54. The Public Guardian submitted that Mr EID does not need a guardian to consent to his access to legal services. The Public Guardian stated that the Legal Aid Commission will represent Mr EID at the next hearing of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, in order to request his conditional release. Ms RFC also emphasised that, under a legal services function, the Public Guardian does not and cannot instruct solicitors or counsel.

55. Ms KQL at first submitted that there is a need for a guardian with a legal services function to continue to provide instructions for Mr EID's conditional release application. However, in her submission dated 30 March 2015, Ms KQL agreed that Mr EID has access to legal services provided by the Mental Health Advocacy Service. Ms KQL noted that a forensic patient or correctional patient having any matter before the Mental Health Review Tribunal must, unless the patient decides that he or she does not want to be represented, be represented by an Australian legal practitioner or, with the approval of the Tribunal, by another person [Mental Health Act 2007, section 154(2)]. For that reason, Ms KQL agreed with the view expressed by Ms RFC on behalf of the Public Guardian on this issue.

56. The Tribunal accepted the views of the Public Guardian and Ms KQL, and concluded that Mr EID no longer needs a guardian to make decisions concerning his access to legal services.

Conditional release application: function not required

57. A stated purpose of the adjournment on 3 March 2015 was to enable the parties and participants, including the Public Guardian and Ms KQL, to consider the issue as to whether Mr EID might now need to have a guardian with the specific authority to decide whether or not to apply on his behalf to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for his conditional release.

58. Ms KQL advised the Tribunal on 3 March 2015 that it is a lengthy process to prepare a plan for conditional release. The process involves finding a secure nursing home placement, a community treating team, and an independent risk assessment, before the Mental Health Advocacy Service is able to file a Notice of Intent with the Mental Health Review Tribunal, seeking conditional release.

59. Ms KQL reported that Mr Mark Ierace SC is of the opinion that a conditional release application is an appropriate course of action for Mr EID's circumstances. Ms KQL intends to hold a further conference with Mr Ierace SC in April 2015. However, according to Ms KQL, Mr EID continues to be unable to give instructions.

60. Further, Ms KQL maintained on 3 March 2015 that Mr EID lacks the capacity to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for conditional release. Ms KQL informed the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) that the Mental Health Advocacy Service may not, of itself, apply for conditional release on Mr EID's behalf. Instead, Ms KQL submitted that the Mental Health Advocacy Service would need to have instructions from a guardian before applying for conditional release on Mr EID's behalf.

61. Ms RFC reported that, in January 2015, the Public Guardian had made contact with Dr V, Psychiatrist. Dr V then advised the Public Guardian that he would not support Mr EID's conditional release, but neither would he object to his conditional release.

62. In her letter to this Tribunal on 30 March 2015, Ms KQL indicated that she had now formed the view that Mr EID's welfare and interests would not be compromised if there was no guardian with the authority to decide whether or not to file a Notice of Intent with the Mental Health Review Tribunal, seeking conditional release.

63. Ms KQL indicated that she had taken account of section 152 of the Mental Health Act 2007, which provides:

The fact that a person is suffering from mental illness or a developmental disability of mind or is suffering from a mental condition that is not a mental illness or a developmental disability of mind is presumed not to be an impediment to the representation of the person by an Australian legal practitioner before the Tribunal.

64. Ms KQL also noted that, if Mr EID's cognitive functioning should decline to the extent that he is unable to seek conditional release, a lawyer from the Mental Health Advocacy Service could seek leave from the Mental Health Review Tribunal for permission to act in an amicus capacity.

65. Ms KQL also called attention to the provisions of section 49 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, which authorises the Mental Health Review Tribunal to make an order allowing a forensic patient to be absent from a mental health facility, correctional centre or other place, subject to such terms and conditions, if any, if the Tribunal thinks fit. That order may be made on the application of the patient, or on the motion of the Tribunal. Ms KQL advised that Mr EID's legal representative could move the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine a conditional release application either on the application of Mr EID, or on the motion of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

66. During the hearing on 31 March 2015, Ms DNQ, Principal Legal Officer with the Office of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, indicated that the responsibilities of the NSW Trustee and Guardian as Mr EID's financial manager would not extend to providing instructions relating to any conditional release application. Ms DNQ observed that the functions of the NSW Trustee and Guardian extend only to decisions relating to Mr EID's property, assets, and the like. While the NSW Trustee and Guardian could sign any contract to enter a nursing home, such as the aged care facility, the NSW Trustee and Guardian would not stand in the shoes of Mr EID for the purpose of any application for conditional release.

67. The Tribunal accepted the reasoning advanced by Ms KQL, and concluded, for those reasons, that Mr EID does not now need to have a guardian with the specific authority to decide whether or not to apply on his behalf to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for his conditional release.

Other functions not required

68. Dr Y reported on 3 March 2015 that Mr EID has been medically stable. Dr Y gave details of Mr EID's medication regime, which includes Risperidone to control his behaviour. Dr Y confirmed that Mr EID is unable to provide his own consent for his medications. However, at the moment, consent for the administration of his medication comes through the forensic mental health system.

69. Ms KQL advised the Tribunal that Mr EID does not need a guardian to consent to his medical treatment, or to make decisions concerning his health care. Ms KQL advised that Mr EID's medical care needs relate mainly to behavioural management, and this is covered by the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

70. The Public Guardian considers that Mr EID would benefit from services such as brain injury specific programs, diversional therapy, speech therapy and other forms of rehabilitation. Ms RFC stated that Mr EID will have access to these and other appropriate services should he relocate to the aged care facility, because that facility specialises in residents who have a brain injury and dementia. The Public Guardian considers that Mr EID does not currently require a guardian to consent to services.

71. Ms KQL agreed with the Public Guardian on 31 March 2015 that there is no immediate need for Mr EID to have a guardian to make decisions concerning services. In Ms KQL's view, Lifetime Care [and Support Authority] can assess Mr EID for services after he has been released to a nursing home.

72. The Tribunal accepted this evidence, and the views of Ms KQL and the Public Guardian. The Tribunal concluded that Mr EID does not need to have a substitute decision-maker on matters relating to his health care, medical or dental treatments, or services.

Who should be the guardian?

73. There was no proposal before the Tribunal that a friend or family member be appointed as a guardian for Mr EID. Accordingly, the Tribunal renewed the guardianship order for Mr EID, reappointing the Public Guardian.

How long should the order last?

74. On a review of an earlier guardianship order, the Tribunal may make a guardianship order for a period of up to three years. However, the Tribunal may make an order for up to five years, if the person the subject of the order has permanent disabilities, is unlikely to become capable of managing his or her person, and there is the need for an order longer than three years.

75. The Tribunal decided to make an order for a period of 18 months, given the nature and extent of Mr EID's disability. This will allow time for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to consider any application for Mr EID's conditional release.

FORMAL FINDING

76. The Tribunal made the following formal finding:

77. Mr EID remains a person for whom a guardian should be appointed.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 30 June 2015