Neal Richards (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen [No 2]

The appellant, identified as Neal Richards, was convicted of charges including attempted armed robbery, and the Supreme Court declared him liable to supervision under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. The court subsequently made a custodial supervision order, which Richards appealed, contending the court should have made a non-custodial supervision order instead. The appeal centred on the legal framework governing supervision orders for individuals declared liable to supervision due to mental impairment. The primary issues were whether the court's power to make a non-custodial supervision order was contingent on a certification of the availability of services and whether the court was required to specify a person having the supervision of the individual subject to the order.

The Court of Appeal determined that the statutory provisions did not necessitate a certification of service availability before a non-custodial supervision order could be made. The court found that the absence of such a certification did not preclude the making of a non-custodial supervision order, as the relevant statutory language permitted the court to exercise its discretion in this matter. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal held that while the Act required the court to specify a person having the supervision of the individual, the court was not obligated to identify that person at the time of making the order, provided that the court was satisfied that appropriate arrangements would be made for supervision. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, substituted a non-custodial supervision order for the custodial order, and nominated the Director of Public Prosecutions as the supervisor.