Minister for Mental Health v Paciocco

[2016] NSWSC 1777

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Minister for Mental Health v Paciocco [2016] NSWSC 1777
Hearing dates:	9 December 2016
Date of orders:	09 December 2016
Decision date:	09 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Orders made renewing interim extension order
Catchwords:	CIVIL – application for interim extension order – by consent – interim orders granted
Legislation Cited:	Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Minister for Mental Health v Paciocco [2016] NSWSC 1530 Minister for Mental Health v Paciocco (Supreme Court (NSW), Adams J, 14 November 2016, unrep)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	New South Wales Minister for Mental Health (Plaintiff) Steven Mark Paciocco by his tutor Jennifer Thompson (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S A Beckett (Plaintiff)   Solicitors: Crown solicitor (Plaintiff) Ms K Wellard (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/00303965
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. In Minister for Mental Health v Paciocco [2016] NSWSC 1530, Beech Jones J made orders under Schedule 1 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act1990 (NSW), amongst other things that Mr Paciocco be subject to an interim extension order from 19 October 2016, for a period of 28 days. The orders were later renewed by Adams J (see Minister for Mental Health v Paciocco (Supreme Court (NSW), Adams J, 14 November 2016, unrep)). They expire on 12 December 2016.

2. The matter is listed for further hearing on 14 December, and by consent the parties seek further orders under clauses 10 and 11(2) of Schedule 1 to the Act, renewing the interim extension order, as well as other orders.

3. Under clause 11(2), an interim extension order may be renewed from time to time, but not so as to provide for the extension of the person’s status as a forensic patient for periods totalling more than three months. That three month period expires on 17 January 2017 and so the making of the consent orders will not offend that provision.

4. The parties relied on material earlier accepted by other members of the Court, when making the interim extension and renewal orders, discussed by Beech-Jones J at [49] - [71] of his Honour’s judgment, which led him to conclude that “the matters alleged in the supporting documentation, if proved, are capable of demonstrating to a high degree of probability that the risk posed by the defendant cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means, that is, means other than the continuation of his status as a forensic patient” (at [67]).

5. Like their Honours, it seems to me on that material, that the application must result in the further orders which the parties have agreed should be made, pending the final hearing next week.

6. For those reasons, by consent I make orders 1, 4 and 5 of the proposed orders which I marked MFI 1.

**********