NR
[2017] WASAT 101
•20 JULY 2017
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: NR [2017] WASAT 101
MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)
HEARD: 28 JUNE 2017
DELIVERED : 20 JULY 2017
FILE NO/S: GAA 1741 of 2017
BETWEEN :NR
Represented Person
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration - Capacity - Presumption of capacity - Mental disability - Unable to make reasonable judgments - Paranoid schizophrenia - Paranoid personality disorder - Major mental illness - DSM-5 - Criminal charges - Civil actions - Bankruptcy petition - Complex estate
Legislation:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 3(1), s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 64, s 68, s 69, s 84, s 97(1)(c)
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)
Result:
Administrator and guardian appointed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
NR is a 54-year-old man detained in a forensic mental health facility under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). He is subject to a number of criminal charges including assault.
NR is also subject to several civil actions and has been served with a bankruptcy notice under the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth). He has also taken civil action against a number of parties and these are yet to be concluded.
He owns a strata property which is at risk of seizure and sale.
Applications for guardianship and administration orders pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA) were made by the Public Advocate in respect of NR.
NR was opposed to the making of guardianship and administration orders except in a limited sense to dispose of his strata property and to purchase a new property (it would appear under his direction which would not be permitted under an administration order).
Prior to his admission to the forensic mental health facility, NR had been under the care of the team at a mental health clinic.
There was a difference of opinion between the forensic team and the team at the mental health clinic as to whether NR had a major mental illness. The forensic team diagnosed NR with paranoid schizophrenia whilst the team at the mental health clinic had earlier diagnosed him with a paranoid delusional disorder. The former is a major mental illness, the latter is not.
The Tribunal accepted the opinion of the forensic team but in any case found that on either diagnosis, NR has a mental disability for the purposes of the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA).
The Tribunal found that NR's mental disability impacted on his ability to make reasonable judgments concerning his estate and in respect to certain significant personal matters.
NR's estate has assumed a complexity largely as a result of his own actions.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of his estate.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as NR's limited guardian to ensure he is given legal assistance for the criminal matters and for his future accommodation and support services.
The Tribunal set a review date for both orders at 12 months.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented Person : N/A
Solicitors:
Represented Person : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
FS [2007] WASAT 202
SM [2015] WASAT 132
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
NR is a 54-year-old man who is currently detained in a forensic mental health facility (forensic facility) under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) (MH Act). He is subject to a number of criminal charges.
NR is also subject to several civil actions and has been served with a bankruptcy notice under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). He has also taken civil action against a number of parties and these are yet to be concluded.
The Public Advocate made applications for the making of guardianship and administration orders in respect to NR pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) (applications).
The applications were made subsequent to an investigation by the Public Advocate under s 97(1)(c) of the GA Act of a complaint by the Council of Owners (Council) of the strata complex in which NR owns a strata unit.
The applications were heard on an expedited basis by the Tribunal because of the parlous state of NR's financial affairs, including the possible seizure and sale of his strata unit. At the time of the Tribunal hearing, NR did not have legal representation for either of the criminal or civil matters.
The applications were heard on 28 June 2017. The hearing was attended by NR, Dr RG, Psychiatric Registrar at the forensic facility, JH, social worker at the forensic facility and DD, Senior Investigator with the Public Advocate.
Decision
On 28 June 2017, I decided to appoint the Public Trustee as NR's plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as his limited guardian to make decisions concerning his accommodation, services to which he should have access and to seek legal advice and representation in regard to the criminal matters.
I said that I would deliver my reasons at a later date. The reasons for my decision follow.
Relevant legislation
The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of NR: s 4(2) of the GA Act.
In considering the applications the Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of NR as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from NR's previous actions: s 4(7) of the GA Act.
NR is presumed to be capable of looking after his own health and safety; making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; managing his own affairs; and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal: s 4(3) of the GA Act.
Under s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act the Tribunal cannot consider appointing a guardian for NR unless it is satisfied on the evidence that he is incapable of looking after his own health and safety; is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or is in need of oversight care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others.
Under s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act, the Tribunal cannot consider appointing an administrator of the estate of NR unless it is satisfied on the evidence that by reason of a mental disability, he is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.
Mental disability is defined in s 3 of the GA Act to include an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, an acquired brain injury and dementia.
If a finding of incapacity is made in respect to NR, the Tribunal must further determine whether he is in need of guardianship and administration orders. If the needs of NR can be met in a manner less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action then orders should not be made: s 4(4), s 43(1)(c) and s 64(1)(b) of the GA Act.
If the Tribunal decides that NR is in need of guardianship and administration orders it must then decide what authority should be given to the guardian and administrator, who the guardian and administrator should be and what review date should be set, given the requirement that orders must be reviewed at least once every five years: s 43(1)(d), s 43(1)(e), s 44, s 45, s 64(1)(c), s 64(1)(d), s 68, s 69 and s 84 of the GA Act.
As to the authority given to a guardian, if a limited order is sufficient to meet the needs of NR then a plenary order should not be made. If limited guardianship and administration orders are made, the orders must place the least restriction necessary on NR: s 4(5) and s 4(6) of the GA Act.
The applications
The Public Advocate filed an extensive report with the Tribunal in support of the applications and which included an advice dated 5 May 2017 from Dr DC, a Consultant Psychiatrist at a mental health clinic.
The applications can be summarised as follows.
The Public Advocate first became involved with NR in January 2017, after a referral from the Council of the strata complex in which he owns his strata unit.
NR had taken action against the owners of the strata complex (strata owners) which appeared to have no prospect of success. The Magistrate hearing the action taken by NR against the strata owners is reported to have strongly recommended that NR seek legal advice and reminded him of the possibility of a costs order being made against him.
NR is said to owe $35,000 for arrears of strata levies. He is likely to face bankruptcy in the coming months. NR was served with a bankruptcy notice by the strata owners on 13 January 2017, for an amount of $42,229.59, the majority of which is for unpaid levies from a judgment made against him on 2 March 2016. The aim of the bankruptcy petition appears to be to provide for the seizure and sale of NR's strata unit. The lawyer representing the Council has told the Public Advocate that the first return of the creditors' petition was held on 30 May 2017. The matter has been listed for 24 July 2017 to determine if a sequestration order should be made.
NR has a claim against the strata owners for $75,000 which is the subject of legal action. DD says that he has read the statement of claim and finds it illogical. On page 11 of his report, he quotes part of the claim as follows:
… Loan of 1.5 million from Lannock Finance illegal as claimant's vote was only dissenting vote … Loan achieved no goal … Loan from Macquarie Bank stopped …
The Council reports aggressive and irrational behaviour by NR, which is of longstanding and recent events suggest this is escalating in a manner detrimental to NR's estate.
NR has further civil action against him by his local council in regard to nonpayment of rates and taxes. It appears that he has also commenced an action against the local council and is seeking damages for an amount linked to the unpaid rates and taxes.
DD states that NR's capacity is a contentious and clouded issue. He appears to be a longterm client of Dr KB, a Consultant Psychiatrist at the mental health clinic.
Dr DC has told the Public Advocate that there is no evidence of NR having a serious mental illness. NR's behaviour is what would be described as antisocial and he has a history of such conduct. He is unpredictable and can be random with the problems that he perceives. He is deliberately provocative and this is consistent with a personality disorder.
NR has been charged with criminal offences and has been admitted to the forensic facility. NR was arrested for assaulting the caretaker of the strata complex. The treating team at the forensic facility have reported to the Public Advocate that it would be disastrous if NR was released back into the community at this time and will inform the court of this risk.
The treating team at the forensic facility have diagnosed NR with paranoid schizophrenia.
Attempts have been made to establish with NR whether he has any supportive family or friends but this has been unsuccessful.
DD says that NR has emerged as an irrational, unorthodox, aggressive and delusional individual. Misconduct restraining orders have been taken out against him by the previous caretaker of the strata complex, a local tavern and a real estate agent.
The treating team at the forensic facility are reported to support the application the appointment of an administrator but are less certain on the need for the appointment of a guardian.
The question of NR's capacity
The Tribunal has before it a number of medical reports and discharge summaries, the latter regarding NR's admissions to a psychiatric hospital from 1995 onwards.
Dr RG gave oral evidence at the hearing.
The written material in chronological order is as follows.
Discharge summaries
1995/96
NR had some history of taking people to court over what appeared to be minor matters. The initial diagnosis was one of a schizophrenic illness or a paranoid delusional disorder, the latter being confirmed by a second psychiatric opinion.
1996
NR had expressed an intention to take legal action following allegations made in a police statement. NR believed that certain people were trying to frame him and was suing a person in respect to some allegations. NR had minimal insight and he believed there was nothing wrong with him. He refused all medication and blood tests. NR was reviewed by the hospital superintendent who felt that he had delusions of a persecutory nature mixed with overvalued ideas.
1998
NR had been living in his car, illegally camping in a State forest. He assaulted a policeman, was harassing people and exhibiting abusive and threatening behaviour. The treating team assessed NR as having a lowgrade paranoid psychosis which would have benefited from treatment; however, he refused to take any medication.
2001
NR was reported to normally reside in a town in the southwest of the state in a property which he owned, however, was currently living at a men's hostel in Perth. NR was hostile and displaying aggressive tendencies and exhibiting increasingly paranoid behaviour. He showed no insight into his problems and was assessed as having a paranoid delusional disorder. He ultimately agreed to accept depot medication and followup in the community.
2010
NR was assessed as suffering from a delusional disorder in the context of paranoid schizophrenia and presented as at chronic risk of noncompliance with medications and followup in the community. He remained extremely litigious and argumentative regarding the diagnosis and treatment claiming he did not have a mental illness and he did not need to be in hospital. He threatened to take legal action if placed on a community treatment order under mental health legislation.
2011
When on the hospital ward, NR was continuing to display paranoid preoccupations. At times, he behaved bizarrely placing notes on his chest and leaves on his arms. After reviewing the hospital notes, a Consultant Psychiatrist concluded he suffered from some sort of definite onset and/or socio occupational decline, that he had a paranoid personality and at times of stress also became psychotic (accounting for his disorganised thought process, the fixed nature of his paranoid ideas, his increased arousal and associated impaired judgment and behaviour resulting in his psychiatric admissions). Dr KB, was contacted and thought it was likely that NR had paranoid preoccupations (which could be of delusional intensity at times) and it was agreed that a community treatment order and antipsychotic medication (which would have needed to be given by force) was unlikely to reduce his symptoms, as had been demonstrated in the past with previous trials of antipsychotics. If NR's behaviour continued to cause concern, the other avenue for behavioural modification could be from a legal point of view, depending on the situation. Antipsychotic medication would need to be reconsidered in times of stress.
5 May 2017 Dr DC (advice to the Public Advocate)
The team from the mental health clinic had conducted three home visits to NR in March and April 2017. During those visits NR had displayed no signs or symptoms of a mental disorder that put him at significant risk to himself or others. He was guarded and irritable but had no overt florid signs of psychosis. There were also no signs or symptoms of depression, hypomania or anxiety. NR refused to have a psychiatric assessment at the mental health clinic.
Dr DC said that whilst there was always a theoretical risk of NR harming others, if this occurred it would not be due to a serious mental illness based on the evidence of the home visits and historical assessments.
Dr DC said that records of the mental health clinic did not show any actual acts of violence by NR, only threats. Dr DC's opinion was that the threats by NR appeared to be deliberately provocative and were not made due to a serious mental illness.
Dr DC said that if the mental health clinic received reports of escalating threats or acts of harm by NR to himself or others then further assessments could be undertaken to determine whether this was due to a serious mental illness, however, the recommendation based on historical assessments would be to pursue charges against NR if, for example, he made threats to others.
28 June 2016 Medical Report from Dr DC
This report was received subsequent to the hearing and confirms the diagnosis of Dr KB.
In the report Dr DC states:
Essentially a diagnosis of delusional disorder&/or paranoid personality disorder made by [Dr KB], [mental health clinic] since 2014 (but [Dr KB]'s notes indicate this diagnosis as early as 2010 when they first assessed/had contact with [NR]). Our Psychiatric Services Online Information System shows his most consistent diagnosis has been a delusional disorder since 1998.
Relevantly, Dr DC states that he has not personally seen NR and that the mental health clinic's most recent contact with NR was in the period 2 March 2017 to 5 May 2017.
26 June 2017 Reports from Dr GW, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist and Dr RG
Doctors GW and RG note that NR has been unemployed since 2008 and is on a Centrelink unemployment payment. He has a registered business and a patented design; however, those involved in his care are sceptical regarding the functional purpose of his business and the design. NR is said to be extremely enthusiastic about work and actively seeks employment applying for 10 jobs per fortnight. He recently applied for the position of Chief Executive Officer of his local council for which he was unsuccessful and which he attributed to the civil litigation he has taken against the local council.
Prior to the long period of unemployment NR was employed in various jobs.
Doctors GW and RG state that the litigious preoccupations with trivial matters are documented in NR's medical notes since 1995. For example, he reportedly took a tradesman to court for being charged two dollars for travel costs. He has had multiple unsuccessful past civil claims including in the Federal Court and in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Doctors GW and RG are aware of the opinions of Dr KB and Dr DC that NR does not possess a major mental illness and that his behaviour can be explained by his paranoid personality style.
Doctors GW and RG have formed a different view. They state in their report:
[NR] has a clear and well documented decline in functioning over the years, from a long term employed husband and father to a socially isolated, unemployed, dishevelled man who is causing significant problems within the community and to his own financial and legal affairs.
In addition, it appears that he has experienced over two decades of significant paranoid, persecutory, grandiose and litigious delusions, with disorganised speech and behaviour.
As such, the most appropriate diagnosis for [NR] is paranoid schizophrenia. It is unclear if, since his original diagnosis in the mid1990s, he has ever had a reasonable trial of treatment with antipsychotic medications.
… It is our opinion that a personality disorder can be excluded due to the fact that his symptoms have not been pervasive throughout his life, that is he functioned at a normal to high level in his early life until the onset of his schizophrenia in his mid-20s.
Doctors GW and RG report that NR continues to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of his current criminal charges, why he is in the forensic facility, why he is unable to leave and why he is being medicated involuntarily. NR refuses to sign an application for a disability support pension believing that he does not have a disability and plans to find employment despite the fact that he has been unemployed for nine years.
Since his admission NR's mental state has noticeably improved in that he is more settled and less irritable, however, his delusional beliefs and lack of understanding regarding legal and financial matters continues.
Oral evidence of Dr RG
In her oral evidence, Dr RG says that psychiatry is not an exact science and there will be differences of view as to whether or not a group of symptoms constitute a major psychiatric illness. She says that the team at the forensic facility is aware of the view of Dr KB, from 2011, when on consideration of NR's medical file and discharge summaries he formed the view that NR is not suffering from a major mental illness but that he has a paranoid personality disorder.
According to Dr RG, a paranoid personality disorder is a pervasive condition, the symptoms of which include an inherent mistrust of people, the tendency to be litigious and to bear grudges. Dr RG accepted that the condition could be characterised as a psychological disturbance but that one would still expect to be able to follow a train of thought through from what the person with the disorder expresses.
Another aspect of such a personality disorder is that there is no effective pharmacological treatment and it is not generally receptive to other forms of treatment.
Dr RG states that a paranoid personality disorder is a disorder recognised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (ed.5, 2013) (DSM-5).
Dr RG states that it could be argued that the presentation of NR to the same extent fits a diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder, however, when considering a group of symptoms if it can be found as in this case that another diagnosis better fits the symptoms presented that diagnosis should prevail. It is on this basis that the team at the forensic facility has diagnosed NR with a major mental illness, that of schizophrenia. Factors which led to that particular diagnosis include symptoms that are more severe than would be expected from a paranoid personality disorder and a documented decline in NR's functioning since his early adulthood.
Dr RG states that NR's mental state is characterised by significant paranoia and grandiose ideas concerning his abilities, for example, regarding his legal matters. NR's condition affects his thinking in that he is not able to identify the different types of decisions that may be open to him and he is not able to weigh up the pros and cons of a decision which needs to be made. His thought processes are not based on reality but on delusional beliefs for example his belief that he has a viable claim against the owners of the strata complex in his action seeking $75,000 in damages. NR has been unable to adequately articulate how he reached that figure and there is an indication that he believes he has already been granted that amount. In addition, NR has not been able to demonstrate to the psychiatric team, a logical argument in respect to the legal actions that he is taking and he has been unable to exercise a logical process in his thinking.
Evidence and submission of NR
It was difficult to get a coherent picture of NR's current financial and personal circumstances from NR in his oral evidence. The presentation of NR was consistent with the evidence of Dr RG in as far as he appeared not to be able to set out in a logical manner the substance of his various legal actions.
NR has consistently held and continues to hold a belief that he does not have a mental illness and refers to the opinion of Dr KB as detailed by Dr DC. It is not clear from NR's evidence that he accepts that he might otherwise have what Dr KB characterises as a paranoid personality disorder and if so what impact that condition might have on his decisionmaking.
NR states that he is pleading not guilty to the criminal charges. He says that he does not need legal representation for the criminal matters.
NR states that he is claiming $75,000 from the strata owners, that amount set he says, because of the jurisdictional limit of any claim in the court in which the claim has been filed. He states that he accepts that he owes the strata owners about $42,000 but counters that by referring to the larger claim he has made against them.
NR relates the claim against the strata owners to what he says was his dissenting vote (the only dissenting vote) regarding a loan that was sought by the strata owners. Other than the purported jurisdictional limit he was not able to explain the basis of his claim.
NR states that he does not want to return to his strata unit. He acknowledges that the other strata owners do not want him living any longer at the strata complex. On that basis NR states that he will accept 'administration' (presumably an administration order) so that his strata unit can be sold and the administrator can purchase another property for him (not a strata property) in an area south of the Swan River because that is where he has his post office box.
NR states that otherwise he does not need a guardian or an administrator of his estate.
Discussion
Administration
There is contention between the two mental health teams treating NR as to what is driving his behaviour. Is it a paranoid personality disorder which is largely not able to be treated by conventional psychiatric means or is it a paranoid schizophrenia which can be treated? And does either or both of these diagnoses fit into the definition of 'mental disability' in s 3(1) of the GA Act?
In SM [2015] WASAT 132 at [44], I said:
… The ordinary meaning of the words 'mental' and 'disability' refer to, amongst other things, a lack of competent ability or weakness relating to the mind or intellect: Macquarie Dictionary Online (2013). Although the definition in s 3(1) of the GA Act mentions certain generally accepted conditions which can impact on a person's cognitive abilities, it is not an exhaustive list and, in my view, was drafted to allow for other ways in which a person's fundamental cognitive functioning might be affected.
Although I did not have the benefit of oral evidence from the team at the mental health clinic (Dr KB was unavailable), I accept the diagnosis of the team at the forensic facility that NR more likely than not has paranoid schizophrenia. This is because the team at the forensic facility has been able to base its assessment not only on the historical material but also on the current presentation of NR which includes the recent criminal charges and his presentation on the ward.
In his report to the Public Advocate of 5 May 2017, Dr DC left open the possibility that the diagnosis of the team at the mental health clinic might be subject to reevaluation if it received reports of escalating threats or acts of harm to himself or others.
Even If I am wrong in this I am satisfied that a paranoid personality disorder as a 'psychological disturbance' and a recognised disorder under DSM5, fits within the definition of 'mental disability' in s 3(1) of the GA Act.
I therefore find that NR has a mental disability.
The question that follows is whether by reason of the mental disability, is NR unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate (s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act)?
The Full Tribunal in FS [2007] WASAT 202 (FS) found that the cognitive process in the making of a reasonable judgment involves knowledge, understanding and evaluation. It also found that the estate to which this judgment is put is the person's actual estate (FS at [106] to [109]).
Dr RG's evidence, which I accept, is that NR's mental state is influenced by his paranoid beliefs and grandiose ideas which are not based in reality and are therefore to be characterised as delusional. I am satisfied that the paranoia and grandiosity infects NR's 'knowledge, understanding and evaluation' about matters that come to his attention in the management of his estate.
NR's actual estate is complex given the various legal proceedings taken against and by him. NR does not believe he requires legal assistance with the difficult civil matters which includes a bankruptcy petition against him. The potential loss to his estate as a result of his actions is significant.
I am therefore satisfied that the presumption of capacity is displaced on the evidence and that NR is presently unable to make reasonable judgments in respect to matters relating to all of his estate as a consequence of his mental disability.
In his evidence, NR said that he would accept having an administrator to sell his strata unit and purchase another property for him but not for anything else. Given that NR does not believe he has a mental illness (and moreover that there is anything that affects his thinking), it seems to me that his view of an administrator is someone who would act under his direction which is incorrect.
In his current circumstances, I am satisfied that it is in NR's best interests to have an administrator appointed to secure and preserve his estate and to bring rationality back to the decisionmaking.
I will therefore appoint the Public Trustee as the administrator of NR's estate and that the order should be plenary in nature.
Given that NR is receiving treatment for his psychiatric condition and that the treatment may have a positive effect on his mental state, I should set a review of the order in the relatively short period of 12 months.
Guardianship
NR is currently detained under the MH Act. He is an involuntary patient in the forensic facility. He is subject to criminal charges for assault and other matters.
On that basis, I find that NR is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others (s 43(1)(b)(iii) of the GA Act).
The reasons I have given for NR being unable to make reasonable judgments about his estate, also apply in my view, to aspects of his personal life (s 43(1)(b)(iii) of the GA Act).
NR does not believe he requires legal assistance for the criminal matters. In the circumstances, I find this to be an unreasonable judgment given the possible outcomes if he is found guilty.
NR is at risk of homelessness given the bankruptcy petition and the possible seizure and sale of his strata unit. Even if those things do not happen, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to return to the strata complex on a permanent basis.
Although NR seems to have some insight into his accommodation predicament, I am not convinced that in his current mental state he is able to make reasonable judgments about what accommodation will ultimately be in his best interests and the planning required to get to that point.
The same holds in my view to the support that NR will likely need in order for him to live safely in the community.
I am satisfied that the treatment of NR's mental illness is dealt with appropriately under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) and that he is not in need of a guardian for that purpose.
Although NR does not believe he is in need of a guardian, I am satisfied that in those three areas identified, legal assistance for the criminal matters, accommodation and support services, it is in NR's current best interests that a guardian be appointed.
I will therefore appoint the Public Advocate as NR's limited guardian for those areas of his personal life.
The guardianship order will be reviewed together with the administration order in 12 months.
Orders
The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [NR];
(a)is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate; and
(b)is in need of an administrator of his estate,
(c)is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(d)is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others; and
(e)is in need of a guardian,
and the Tribunal orders that:
1.The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Act.
2.The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia be appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a)To decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)To decide with whom the represented person is to live;
(c)To determine the services to which the represented person should have access; and
(d)To seek legal advice and representation on behalf of the represented person, and to advocate generally for him in relation to any police investigation, criminal charges or related proceedings.
3.The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
4.The administration and guardianship orders are to be reviewed by 28 June 2018.
I certify that this and the preceding [94] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER