In the matter of s35 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried Act) 1997 In the matter of major review of: R J O

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Not Restricted

No. 1464 of 1998

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 35 OF
THE CRIMES (MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
AND UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED) ACT

1997

A MAJOR REVIEW OF "R.J.O"

(NAME SUPPRESSED)

---

JUDGE:	Eames, J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	12, 13, 26 August, 18 September, 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 September 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSC 85

---

Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 - major review under s. 35 - whether safety of Reviewee or public will be seriously endangered by making order varying custodial supervision order to non-custodial supervision order.

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Attorney General

Miss B. King QC

Victorian

Government

Solicitor

For the Director of Public

Mr W.H. Morgan-Payler QC

Solicitor for the D.P.P

Prosecutions

For the Reviewee

Dr I. Freckelton

Mental Health Legal Centre
Inc.

For the Department of

Mr R. Punshon

Human Services

Russell Kennedy

HIS HONOUR:

On 6 November 1972 a man, whose name I have suppressed (together with the place of residence of his parents) and whom I shall call "R.J.O"(or “the Reviewee”) shot dead Patrick John Curtain outside the hotel at which Mr Curtain worked in Pascoe Vale. On 7 August 1973 a jury found the Reviewee not guilty of murder on the ground of insanity. On that day the trial judge, Lush J, made an order pursuant to s.420 of the Crimes Act 1958 that the Reviewee be detained at the Governor's Pleasure and on 28 August 1973 his Excellency made known his pleasure that the Reviewee be detained in safe custody.
At the time of the happening of the events the Reviewee had no prior criminal history and was then aged 31 years. He is now aged 56 years, having been in custody for nearly 27 years.
In the six years prior to the killing the Reviewee had been committed to mental institutions on a number of occasions, with a consistent diagnosis that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Initially the Reviewee was held in “G” Division at Pentridge but was then certified under the Mental Health Act 1959 and transferred to Mont Park Mental Hospital on 16 October 1973. In June 1974 he was transferred to “J” Ward at Ararat Prison. At this time he was receiving anti-psychotic medication but on previous occasions had refused to co-operate in taking his medication. Over the following years his situation was reviewed many times by the Adult Parole Board and the Board recorded many years of relapsing paranoid schizophrenia brought about by the Reviewee's periodic refusal to take his anti- psychotic medication. When he refused to take his medication he would become aggressive, abusive and potentially dangerous. He would then be certified and transferred to hospital for treatment.
A report from the Adult Parole Board filed before me recorded that the cycle of refusal of treatment and certification and transfer to hospital for involuntary treatment “was exacerbated by (the Reviewee's) parents' stoic refusal to believe that their son had a mental illness, and their repeated appeals to his treating psychiatrist to cease medication, which served to support (the Reviewee's) contention that the doctors and medication were responsible for his predicament”. The Board recorded further:
“When floridly psychotic [the Reviewee] threatened to shoot the psychiatry personnel. Twelve years after (the killing) he remained with very little insight into his mental problems, and he freely discussed his intention to kill again, ‘it’s just so easy’. He would state he was not interested in parole, as he would refuse medication if ever released, and therefore most probably would kill again. He spent 13 of his first 18¾ years in custody contained in psychiatric hospitals.”
As I will later discuss, the circumstance of his parents taking the side of their son in his objections to taking medication, no longer applies. They are now persuaded that it is essential that he complies with medication.
In July 1986 the Parole Board recommended that the place of detention of the Reviewee be changed from prison to a mental hospital, but he was then returned to prison in February 1988. He was described in a psychiatric report at that time as being fragile and vulnerable with a potential for relapse and was returned to “G” Division, Pentridge, then to “J” Ward at Ararat, in November 1988. He was then returned again to “G” Division but his mental health deteriorated and he was transferred back and forth between “G” Division and “J” Ward. By July 1990 he was at Mont Park in the new forensic psychiatry rehabilitation unit and was enjoying some unescorted leave to go shopping and to visit his parents at home in Melbourne.
On 4 December 1990 the Reviewee absconded from Mont Park and purchased and consumed beer, and then went to his parent’s home. His parents returned him to Mont Park.
The Reviewee has on occasions been transferred to and from the high security ward, M6, in Rosanna Forensic Psychiatry Centre (as the Mont Park Hospital is now known) and the Rehabilitation Ward, M5. He was allowed some continuing leave in the company of his parents - as much as 10 days in 1993. On three occasions since 1990 he has been trialled with a transfer to the low security unit M5, but in each instance the reduction in the strictness of the supervision which accompanied the change of ward was followed by deterioration in his mental state.
The Reviewee is at present in Ellery Unit at the Rosanna Forensic Mental Health Centre, and has been there since February 1998. Ellery is a medium level security ward. Ellery Unit has a focus on rehabilitation, and on programmes designed towards life skills and self care, and such activities as cooking classes are undertaken by residents. The authorised psychiatrist at Rosanna is Dr Ruth Vine, who filed helpful reports and gave evidence before me.
During his periods of detention in prison the Reviewee demonstrated aggressive and threatening behaviour, and Dr Vine reported that there had been instances of aggression towards medical and nursing staff, too. In August 1994 he made a serious attack on a staff member at Rosanna - grabbing her from behind (possibly, attempting to strangle her), and then trying to cut her neck with a comb. The staff member was traumatised by the incident, but not otherwise injured.
In February 1995 the Reviewee's medication was changed, he being placed on Clozapine. That drug proved to have an excellent response but whilst he was on Christmas leave to his parents in 1996 he ceased to take his medication and he developed symptoms so alarming as to cause his family to contact the staff at Rosanna and he was returned to Rosanna. He has a very cautious leave plan at the moment, which permits escorted leave from Ellery at the discretion of staff and accompanied ground leave in company of his parents for four hours twice per month.
The situation of the Reviewee is now required to be reviewed pursuant to the terms of s.35 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 35 of that Act provides as follows:

“35. Major reviews

(1) At least 3 months before the end of the nominal term of a supervision order, the court that made the order must undertake a major review.
(2) The purpose of a major review is to determine whether the person subject to the order is able to be released from it.
(3) On a major review, the court -
(a) if the supervision order is a custodial supervision order -

(i) must vary the order to a non-custodial supervision order, unless satisfied on the evidence available that the safety of the person subject to the order or members of the public will be seriously endangered as a result of the release of the person on a non-custodial supervision order; or
(ii) if so satisfied, must confirm the order or vary the place of custody;
(b) if the supervision order is a non-custodial supervision order -

(i) may confirm the order; or
(ii) may vary the conditions of the order; or
(iii) may revoke the order.”

By cl. 2(1) of Schedule 3 of the Act the Reviewee is deemed to be detained pursuant to a custodial supervision order. By s. 38 of the Act the court, in conducting a major review, is not bound by rules or practice as to evidence, but may inform itself in relation to any matter in such manner as it thinks fit.
I have before me a substantial amount of relevant material, including the files of the Correctional Services Department and the Adult Parole Board, which contain a very large number of reports by psychiatrists, psychologists, occupational therapists and from those in other disciplines. I have, too, substantial material, including transcript, from the trial of the Reviewee, and up to date psychiatric and psychologist reports, which in many instances were supplemented by oral evidence. I also have affidavits from the Reviewee, his parents, and from a brother and sister. I have also received reports from victims of the killing, being family members of the deceased. I heard evidence from Mr David Wiltshire, senior clinical and forensic psychologist with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, from Dr Lester Walton, a consultant psychiatrist, from Dr Ruth Vine, the authorised psychiatrist with the Rosanna Forensic Psychiatry Centre, and from Dr Peter Doherty, recently appointed Director of Psychiatry at Alfred Hospital, who has also held positions as Director of Clinical Services for the northern and central eastern Melbourne region, and is a former manager of community health services. I also had the benefit of substantial and helpful submissions from the experienced counsel who appeared before me.
In this case counsel for the Reviewee, Dr Freckelton, submitted that, pursuant to the terms of s.35(3), his client should have his situation varied to the status of a non- custodial supervision order. Section 26(2)(a) and s. 3 defines a custodial supervision order as being one which commits a person to custody in an appropriate place, which might include the Rosanna Centre. On the other hand, s. 26(2)(b) provides that a person may be released from custody on a non-custodial supervision order, which may be subject to such conditions as the court stipulates. If detained in custody in an appropriate place then by s. 26(8) the person is deemed to be in the custody of the Secretary to the Department of Human Resources. Although no section of the Act expressly provides for it, ss. 29, 30 and 31 presume that the court, in making a non-custodial supervision order, will identify a person who will be the supervisor of the person made subject to the supervision order.
Counsel for the Reviewee proposed several alternative outcomes which might result by way of the imposition of conditions of a non-custodial supervision order, should such an order be made under s. 35(3). The primary submission was that the Reviewee should be permitted to live with his parents, who reside in a small country town in Gippsland, having moved there from Melbourne after Christmas 1996. In support of that application I received affidavits from the parents of the Reviewee and also from his brother and sisters. The Reviewee’s father is now aged 82 years and the mother of the Reviewee is also in her early eighties. Two sisters of the Reviewee, aged 60 and 42, both live in the same small town, and an elder brother, aged 62, lives nearby. The Reviewee himself is now aged 56 years.
Were I to reject the proposal that the Reviewee be permitted to reside with his parents, then, as the first alternative to residence with his parents, counsel sought an order that under the non-custodial supervision order the Reviewee be permitted to reside in a community care unit in Melbourne. Community Care Units are residential units, in a cluster setting within the community, where psychiatric patients may reside and where, within the same location, nursing staff reside. A 24 hour nursing presence is maintained but there is an absence of confinement of the patients. The patients could leave the unit if they chose to do so, and there is no fencing to prevent that. Counsel had initially sought placement for his client in a community care unit in Gippsland, but now accepts that there is no facility in Gippsland which could meet the requirements of the Reviewee. As a further, and least favoured, alternative, counsel for the Reviewee submitted that his client could have his status reduced to that of a non-custodial supervision order but upon condition that he reside at Ellery Unit and not leave that unit, save to transfer to the new Fairfield facility when its construction is completed. The Fairfield forensic psychiatric facility, which will replace Rosanna, will be ready for occupation in about April or May 1999.
In considering the application of s. 35 of the Act (which falls within Part 5 of the Act) I am to have regard to the principles identified in s. 39 and to the matters identified in s. 40. Those sections read as follows:

“39. Principle to be applied

In deciding whether to make, vary or revoke a supervision order or to remand a person in custody under this Act, the court must apply the principle that restrictions on a person’s freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community.
40. Matters to which the court is to have regard

(1)

In deciding whether or not to make, vary or revoke an order under Part 3, 4 or 5 in relation to a person, the court must have regard to -
(a)        the nature of the person’s mental impairment or other condition or disability; and
(b)       the relationship between the impairment, condition or disability and the offending conduct; and
(c)         whether the person is, or would if released be, likely to endanger themselves, another person, or other people generally because of his or her mental impairment; and
(d)        the need to protect people from such danger; and
(e)        whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the person in the community; and
(f)         any other matters the court thinks relevant.

(2)

The court cannot order a person to be released unconditionally or otherwise release a person from custody under Part 3, 4 or 5, or significantly reduce the degree of supervision to which a person is subject, unless it -

(a)

has obtained and considered the report of at lease one registered medical practitioner or registered psychologist, who has personally examined the person, on -
(i) the person’s mental condition; and
(ii) the possible effect of the proposed order on the person’s behaviour; and

(b)        has considered the report submitted to the court under section 41(1) or (3) (as the case may be); and
(c)         is satisfied that the person’s family members and the victims of the offence with which the person was charged (if any), have been given reasonable notice of the hearing at which the release or reduction is proposed to be ordered; and
(d)        has considered any report of the family members or victims made under section 42; and
(e)        has obtained and considered any other reports the court considers necessary.

(3) Notice need not be given under sub-section (2)(c) to a person whose whereabouts have not, after reasonable inquiry, been ascertained.”

Although Dr Vine considered that the Reviewee had made significant progress by virtue of his treatment with Clozopine she was of the opinion that he would be very dangerous to members of the public were he to cease treatment. In her opinion, were the Reviewee to cease his medication then, within a matter of days, his condition would deteriorate to constitute "a very grave risk not only of relapse, but a very serious relapse and a rapid relapse".
In Dr Vine's opinion, which I accept and which gains support in the report of psychologist Mr David Wiltshire, the Reviewee has no insight, at all, into his condition, and it is a feature of his condition that he considers that such problems as he has are due entirely to the medication. He has repeatedly stated to staff at Rosanna that he would cease treatment if he could, and it is Dr Vine's opinion that he would, indeed, cease his medication were he given "the slightest opportunity" to do so, and Dr Vine expressed extreme concern were that to occur. Dr Vine reported that in his delusional periods the Reviewee had gone so far as to complain that his medication was poisoned. She said that the Reviewee frequently makes threats, and that, in her opinion, his parents would be unlikely to provide the degree of supervision that would be required were the Reviewee to be released into their care in the country community in which they reside. When interviewed for the purpose of a report being prepared for the major review the Reviewee told Dr Walton, too, that he did not really accept that he was ill, and when interviewed for the purpose of a psychologist’s report the Reviewee told Mr Wiltshire that he believed that the doctors and nursing staff were experimenting on him by prescribing medication which had been designed for the express purpose of hurting him.
Dr Vine considered there would be a significant risk of the Reviewee engaging in aggressive behaviour towards others were the level of supervision to be reduced below that which he presently experiences. Whilst she considers that there may be a time, in future, where his status might be varied, and while she accepted that under his present regime periods of leave to visit his parents may be appropriate, she recommended that his status not be varied. Dr Vine noted that the Reviewee requires very close supervision on every occasion when he is required to take his dose of Clozopine. He was so fragile that when transferred from Ward M6 to the less structured environment of M5 he very rapidly became distressed and experienced horrible delusions, notwithstanding the fact that he was taking his medication. In his report, dated 19 July 1998, Mr Wiltshire stated that the Reviewee’s intellectual functioning was in the low average range and he had difficulty applying information to solve problems in the real world. He had a relatively poor ability to interpret social situations. Mr Wiltshire said that the various deficits in his level of functioning were compensated for by the routine and structure provided in Ellery Unit. Mr Wiltshire said that he might have great trouble adapting to a new and relatively unstructured environment, such as living with his parents.
Dr Vine noted that were the Reviewee to be transferred to the new, high security, forensic facility at Fairfield, when it opens in early to mid 1999, considerable improvement in the surroundings of the Reviewee will occur, so that the harshness of his present custodial situation (in the old, bleak and cramped surroundings in the Rosanna complex) will be diminished significantly by the change in environment.
The expert evidence in this case is unanimous as to the consequence of the Reviewee ceasing to take his medication. All of the expert witnesses agree that in that event the Reviewee's condition would seriously endanger members of the public with whom he might come into contact. There was some disagreement between Dr Vine and Dr Walton as to how quickly the Reviewee would become unstable if he ceased his medication. Dr Walton considered that there would probably be sufficient time for the instability of the Reviewee to be observed and be acted upon before he became violent. Dr Vine considered that the mood of the Reviewee would become volatile and dangerous within a matter of days of the cessation of treatment.
The moods of the Reviewee, at present, have been controlled by medication, and he is permitted to accompany his parents on day leave from the Centre where he is detained, and he is also permitted some leave in the company of nursing staff. Although Clozapine has been of great benefit to the Reviewee, his condition is, nonetheless, described by Dr Vine as being "fragile".

In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming that should the Reviewee be released on a non-custodial supervision order - for example, to live with his parents - there would be a serious risk, amounting to a probability, in my view, that the Reviewee would cease his medication. Whilst counsel for the Reviewee pointed to factors which were capable of suggesting that the Reviewee had some insight as to the need to take his medication, including an affidavit which he swore and was filed before me, I consider that the assessment of Dr Vine is much more likely to be correct, namely, that the Reviewee has no insight at all as to the necessity for his medication. Dr Vine said that so far as the Reviewee is concerned it is the medication which is in fact the cause of all of his troubles. He has stated to her on many occasions that he will cease to take his medication as soon as he gets the chance. He repeated to Dr Walton his objection to medication. Although he did say to Dr Walton that the Clozapine is the best of the drugs which he has taken, in terms of its relative absence of debilitating side effects, Dr Vine, who sees the Reviewee on a regular basis, said that in her experience, the Reviewee’s stated objection to medication has extended to Clozapine also.
Even when on his medication, the Reviewee exhibits angry behaviour and frequently threatens harm to nursing staff and psychiatrists. That is merely part of his illness, but it tends to confirm the dangerousness of the Reviewee should he be given the opportunity to cease to take medication. In making these observations it is important to keep in mind that the Reviewee is a very ill man. He has never been convicted of a criminal offence. His situation is a tragic one and the matters which I have described, above, in no way carry with them any moral condemnation of the Reviewee. My concern is only to describe, as objectively as I can, those facts which seem to me to be established and which bear on the questions I must address under s. 35.
On behalf of the Reviewee it is submitted that his parents would ensure that their son would take his medication and they would notify the relevant authorities should he fail to do so. I have no doubt that his parents are completely sincere in their intentions, but the evidence suggests to me that it is the compulsion of his detention which causes the Reviewee’s compliance at the moment; it is not any insight into the need to do so, which motivates the Reviewee. I think it highly unlikely that his parents could ensure that the Reviewee did take his medication. In December 1996 they were unable to ensure that their son took his medication and the sudden, and alarming, deterioration in his condition caused them to ensure that he was quickly returned to Rosanna.
The Reviewee would, therefore, present a very serious risk to members of the public, and his illness is so severe that I could not exclude his own parents as being persons at risk if he ceased medication.
The only difference in opinion as expressed by Dr Vine and Dr Walton relates to the question whether there might, appropriately, be a notional change in his status from that of a person under a custodial supervision order to that of a non-custodial supervision order. Both experts contemplated that precisely the same treatment regime should be maintained, namely being housed on an involuntary basis at Ellery. Dr Vine was of the opinion that the Reviewee either needed to be retained on a custodial supervision order or else had to be detained as an involuntary patient, and, given that only Rosanna offered the secure facilities which he required, his present situation, and status, should not change as to his location or treatment regime. Although Dr Walton argued for the change in status to a non- custodial supervision order, he was also adamant that the present location of the Reviewee should not, in fact, be changed. In other words, although Dr Walton contemplated that the Reviewee might technically be declared to no longer be under a custodial supervision order, Dr Walton considered that he should not be permitted to join his parents, but should be detained at Ellery Clinic, as an involuntary patient, being certified for that purpose. Dr Walton expressly acknowledged that the Reviewee would, indeed, be dangerous should he stop taking his medication.
The proposition that the Reviewee might be placed on a non-custodial supervision order but one subject to conditions that obliged him to reside at Ellery Unit, was advanced by counsel for the Reviewee in support of the third alternative proposal which he submitted to me. In my view, such an order would not be able to be made since, in the guise of it being a non-custodial order, the reality would be that the Reviewee was detained in custody. Whilst the Act is not expansive in its definitions of “custodial supervision orders” and “non-custodial supervision orders” (as those terms are defined in s.26 and s.3 of the Act) it would be entirely inconsistent with the concept stated in s.35(3)(a) that there be a "release" of the person on a non-custodial supervision order, if that would involve the compulsory detention of that person. I heard submissions from counsel as to the relationship between the operation of the Mental Health Act - which gives power to appropriate persons to certify mentally ill persons, and to thereby confine them as involuntary patients - and the power and effect of a non-custodial supervision order under the Act. It is not necessary that I explore that question in any detail for this major review. It is apparent, however, that were there to be a condition of a non-custodial supervision order that the person not leave Rosanna, and the person attempted to do so, an application would have to be made to the court under s. 29 to vary the order to a custodial supervision order. That section requires that 14 days notice of the application be given. I doubt (but do not need to decide) whether the person might be made an involuntary patient, in the meantime, pursuant to ss. 10 or 12 of the Mental Health Act, since the supervision of the person would be governed by the Act, not by the Mental Health Act. The emergency powers of s. 30 of the Act would be an appropriate means to ensure the apprehension and confinement of the person. The situation would be fraught with uncertainty and would have a potential for confusion as to who had the appropriate power (and under which legislation) to take urgent action. Such a situation would be inimical to public safety, in my view.
It was suggested on behalf of the Reviewee (as a less preferred option than a return to reside permanently with his parents) that he might be placed in a community care unit in Melbourne. That option is quite inappropriate, in my opinion. I heard detailed evidence as to the availability and features of such units from Dr Peter Doherty. Such units do not provide adequate security, Dr Doherty said, and even if he did obtain such accommodation, the Reviewee would be denied the range of programs which are available to him, at present, at Ellery. Supervision of the Reviewee in a community care unit would depend on the vigilance of the nursing staff attached to the unit. Dr Doherty said that, in his opinion, such a unit would be an inappropriate placement for the Reviewee, given the severity of his illness and his stated reluctance to comply with medication, although it might be something to be aimed for. Dr Walton and Dr Vine also rejected the suggestion that a community care unit would be appropriate for the Reviewee.
For completeness, I note that I received a certificate from the delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Human Services pursuant to s. 47 of the Act. Section 26(3) provides that an order committing a person to custody in an appropriate place may not be made unless a certificate under s. 47 states that appropriate facilities or services are available. In this case the certificate states that such facilities are available at the Rosanna Forensic Mental Health Centre.
I conclude that a consideration of each and all of the factors identified by s. 40(1) leads to the conclusion that the status of the Reviewee can not be changed. His mental impairment is such, and the relationship to and risk of, violent action which his illness has caused, and might cause, means that the safety of the public could not be assured should his status change.
Under s.42 of the Act I am entitled to receive reports from victims of the killing, which by s.42(1) may be received for the purpose of assisting the counselling and treatment of the victims or in assisting the court in determining any condition which it might impose on a supervision order. By s.42(3) the report of a victim is to give particulars of any injury loss and damage suffered by virtue of the conduct of the Reviewee. If a report is received, then, by s.40(2)(d), I must consider such report.
I received victim reports from the widow and two of the daughters of the deceased man. Those statements were moving expressions of their great sense of loss, and the difficulties in their subsequent lives which the family experienced by virtue of the death of Mr Curtain. Although I have regard to that material, and well appreciate the devastation of their loss, it must be kept in mind that the major review is not a sentencing process; indeed, the Reviewee has been found not guilty of murder and the issues which I must address relate to the potential danger were he to be now released, rather than to any question of punishment for causing the death. It is, however, timely, to have regard to the fact of the seriousness of the events which were provoked by the illness of the Reviewee on the occasion which led to the Governor’s Pleasure order. Indeed s 40(1) requires that I do so. The killing of Mr Curtain serves to remind the court of the nature of what might occur should the Court make an inappropriate order.
The Act also provides for me to receive and consider reports from the family of the Reviewee. I received affidavits from the mother, father, brother and one sister of the Reviewee. The tragedy of the illness of the Reviewee has touched many lives - not only the family and friends of the deceased man, but also the family of the Reviewee. The parents of the Reviewee dearly wish to have their son live with them, a perfectly understandable desire, but one, I fear, which makes it difficult for them to weigh objectively the risk which that course would create. It is plain that the parents, and also the siblings of the Reviewee, very much love and support him, and he reciprocates that love. The parents are both in their early eighties. The father deposed that he is in good health, but I do not know the state of health of the mother of the Reviewee. Their advancing age no doubt adds a particular urgency to the parents' desire to have their son live with them, but, unfortunately, the advancing years also tend to militate against acceding to their wishes. In reaching the decision which I have in this major review I do so because the evidence is overwhelming in leading me to conclude that no other course is consistent with public safety. That is not to say that the situation is irreversible, but the long years in custody have taken their toll in institutionalising the Reviewee. He will move to the new facility at Fairfield when its construction is completed in about April or May 1999. The new facility will substantially improve the life style of all persons who live and work there and, hopefully, in the new environment the gradual progress of the Reviewee will be accelerated. If that occurs, so that the concerns which I have expressed are allayed by virtue of his continuing treatment, then he has an entitlement under the Act to seek review of his situation, including variation to a non-custodial supervision order. I am confident that the staff of the Rosanna Forensic Psychiatry Centre will do everything reasonably possible to maximise the prospects of such an outcome.
I conclude, therefore, that I am satisfied under s.35(3) that the variation of status of the Reviewee from that of a custodial supervision order to a non-custodial supervision order would seriously endanger the safety of the Reviewee or of members of the public, and I confirm the custodial supervision order. The Reviewee will, therefore, be detained in custody at the Rosanna Forensic Mental Health Centre or at such place, being an approved mental health service, as may be deemed appropriate by the Secretary to the Department of Human Services, or as may be ordered by the court.
---

[1998] VSC 85

30 September 1998