R v Burfield - [2007] SASC 350

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v BURFIELD
[2007] SASC 350
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
27 September 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - PROBATION, PAROLE, RELEASE ON LICENCE AND REMISSIONS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - REMISSIONS
MENTAL HEALTH - CONFINEMENT AND RESTRAINT OF MENTALLY ILL PERSONS AND SIMILAR ORDERS - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY - DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL INFIRMITY
Applicant found not guilty of offence of attempted murder by reason of mental incompetence - custodial supervision order with 11 year limiting term imposed - applicant detained in closed ward at Glenside Campus - application to vary supervision order for limited release on licence - section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides for variation or revocation of supervision order at any time during limiting term - applicant sought limited release from closed ward to attend rehabilitation programs at open, supervised ward at Glenside Campus - section 269S of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides that court must apply the principle that restrictions on applicant's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to a minimum consistent with safety of community - expert reports from three psychiatrists and report from victim and next of kin provided to Court pursuant to section 269T(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act - evidence from psychiatrists that variation of supervision order a positive and necessary step for applicant's long-term rehabilitation and reintegration - evidence from psychiatrists that there are sufficient resources for proposed release plan - evidence from psychiatrists that proposed release plan would provide sufficient safeguards for victim and community - report from victim expressed concern for her personal safety and did not support application - report from next of kin supported application - consideration of proposed release plan - whether the applicant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger the victim or the community - whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the applicant - whether the applicant is likely to comply with the conditions of a licence - whether the applicant is likely to abscond.
Held: application allowed - original supervision order revoked - substituted supervision order imposed by consent - applicant granted limited release on licence subject to strict monitoring conditions - substituted supervision order a positive and necessary step for applicant's long-term rehabilitation and reintegration - risk posed toward victim and community lessened by strict conditions in substituted supervision order - substituted supervision order balances benefits to applicant with interests of victim and community.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269P(1), s 269O(1)(b), s 269S and s 269T, referred to.
R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438; R v Burfield (No 2) [2005] SASC 439; R v Burfield (No 3) [2006] SASC 97, considered.

R v BURFIELD
[2007] SASC 350
Criminal
GRAY J.

This is an application to vary a supervision order pursuant to section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
Background
On 15 September 2005, the applicant, Mark Andrew Burfield, was found not guilty of the offence of attempted murder by reason of mental incompetence.[1] Mr Burfield was subsequently declared to be liable to a supervision order pursuant to section 269O(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.[2] On 7 April 2006, I fixed a limiting term of 11 years for the supervision order.[3] My reasons for the above decisions provide the background to the present application.
[1]    See R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438.
[2]    This order was the subject of my reasons in R v Burfield (No 2) [2005] SASC 439.
[3]    The fixing of the limiting term was the subject of my reasons in R v Burfield (No 3) [2006] SASC 97.
On 24 July 2006, Mr Burfield applied to vary the supervision order and be released on licence. This application was subsequently amended on 27 February 2007. The amended application requested the Court to consider a variation of the supervision order to allow Mr Burfield limited and periodic release from strict detention at a closed unit at James Nash House. This was to enable Mr Burfield to attend rehabilitation activities within an open but supervised ward at Glenside Campus. The application would permit Mr Burfield to continue residing at the James Nash House unit, known as Grove Closed Forensic Rehabilitation Unit, located on the Glenside Campus, and allow him to attend an open ward, the North Glen ward, at Glenside for periods of up a maximum of three hours on no more than two days a week to attend education and socialisation programs.
The Legislative Scheme
Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act sets out the procedure to be followed where a person has been determined to be mentally incompetent.
During the limiting term, a court may vary or revoke a supervision order. Section 269P provides:
(1)At any time during the limiting term, the court may, on the application of the Crown, the defendant, Parole Board, the Public Advocate or another person with a proper interest in the matter, vary or revoke a supervision order and, if the order is revoked, make, in substitution for the order, any other order that the court might have made under this Division in the first instance.
(2)If the court refuses an application by or on behalf of a defendant for variation or revocation of a supervision order, a later application for variation or revocation of the order cannot be made by or on behalf of the defendant for six months or such greater or lesser period as the court may direct on refusing the application.
In determining whether to release a person, or release a person on licence, a court must apply the principle in section 269S:
In deciding whether to release a defendant under this Division, or the conditions of a licence, the court must apply the principle that restrictions on the defendant's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community.
Section 269T(1) outlines the matters that a court should have regard to:
In deciding proceedings under this Division, the court should have regard to—
(a)     the nature of the defendant's mental impairment; and
(b)     whether the defendant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger another person, or other persons generally; and
(c)     whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the defendant in the community; and
(d)     whether the defendant is likely to comply with the conditions of a licence; and
(e)     other matters that the court thinks relevant.
Section 269T(2) provides that a court cannot release a person, or significantly reduce the degree of supervision a person is subject to, unless the court:
(a)has considered at least three reports (expert reports) each prepared by a different psychiatrist or other appropriate expert who has personally examined the defendant, on—
(i)    the mental condition of the defendant; and
(ii)     the possible effects of the proposed action on the behaviour of the defendant; and
(b)has considered the report most recently submitted to the court by the Minister under this Division; and
(c)has considered the report on the attitudes of victims and next of kin prepared under this Division; and
(d)     is satisfied that—
(i)    the defendant's next of kin; and
(ii)     the victim (if any) of the defendant's conduct; and
(iii)    if a victim was killed as a result of the defendant's conduct—the next of kin of the victim,
have been given reasonable notice of the proceedings.
Medical Reports
Counsel for Mr Burfield relied on reports of Drs Narain Nambiar, Harry Hustig and Maria Tomasic.
Dr Nambiar
Dr Nambiar is a consultant forensic psychiatrist and has been Mr Burfield’s treating psychiatrist at James Nash House since the supervision order of 15 September 2005. Dr Nambiar reported on 15 September 2006 with respect to his then treatment and progress:
At the present time [Mr Burfield’s] medication appears to have been the most successful combination in treating almost all of the symptoms of schizophrenia. …
Mr Burfield was transferred from the transition ward at James Nash House to the Grove Closed slow stream rehabilitation ward where he currently resides. This occurred after it was identified that with the addition of injectable medication Mr Burfield’s mental state improved considerably to the point where he began to gain insight into the nature of his illness and identify symptoms thereof. There had been concerns about the uncertainty of his impulse control and propensity towards aggression, however this has been largely alleviated by his current combination of medication, allowing for his transfer to a lower security ward.
Mr Burfield has undergone an occupational therapy assessment, psychological and social work evaluation and it would appear that he is currently functioning at his optimum level in the context of having developed chronic schizophrenia. His interpersonal skills have improved although he still remains reserved, and his level of preoccupation with the offence and with delusions that contributed to the offence have been minimised.
Within the confines of a closed ward setting Mr Burfield is now able to participate in ward programs in an appropriate manner and has not posed a risk to staff or fellow patients. He has participated in all programs in a reasonable fashion.
With respect to his mental state, Dr Nambiar reported:
Mr Burfield is now polite and cooperative, maintains good eye contact and is softy spoken. There is an obvious reduced reactivity in facial expression and affect, consistent with his illness and medication. Nonetheless he does not appear to be depressed, nor is his mood elevated and his thought processes appear to be relatively well intact.
On direct inquiry Mr Burfield is able to identify that he held delusions in the past which he describes as paranoid and grandiose … He also describes auditory hallucinations in the form of voices that were derogatory and would often command him to do things. At the present time these hallucinatory experiences have completely remitted and he is able to talk about them as being part of an illness phase.
He appears to have developed a better understanding of schizophrenia, naming symptoms of delusions, hallucinations and abnormal behaviour as a result.
…
Cognitively he is alert and orientated and able to process information, and as a result has a clear understanding of his current legal status and the nature of the application currently before the court.
He understands that he is applying to be transferred to an open ward on the Glenside Campus and that he would be required to remain there under supervision for an indefinite period of time and at the discretion of the courts in consultation with his treating psychiatrist.
His insight appears to have improved considerably with less resistance to taking medication and an acceptance of the treatment proposed.
Dr Nambiar identified a “significant shift” in Mr Burfield’s thinking concerning his mother. While Mr Burfield still maintained a great degree of anger toward his mother, he said that he had no intention to inflict harm upon her. In Dr Nambiar’s opinion, medication had neutralised Mr Burfield’s delusional thinking which, as a result, had significantly reduced the risk of Mr Burfield pursuing his mother or further harming her.
Dr Hustig
Dr Hustig, the Director of Rehabilitation Services at Glenside Campus, interviewed Mr Burfield and provided a report dated 21 September 2006.
Dr Hustig reported that during Mr Burfield’s time at James Nash House, he had been completely detoxified from any drug induced psychosis and appeared to have developed reasonable control over anger, had become co-operative with the psychological intervention programs and to some degree had benefited from the behavioural therapy. Dr Hustig considered that “[t]he real challenge is whether Mr Burfield will continue to demonstrate his insight and judgement as the various restrictions are slowly lifted”. With respect to the application for a variation of the supervision order, Dr Hustig opined:
Although he has been given a licence time of eleven years and it is still early in his licence, I believe the potential for a relapse and the extended time period that rehabilitation will be required if it is to be successful that is it [sic] probably reasonable to transfer him from Grove Closed, to an open bed in the Rehabilitation Services at Glenside. I believe it is imperative that his conditions of licence make it clear that he does not leave the grounds of Glenside except for medical or dental emergencies or part of a well supervised rehabilitation program involving at least two members of the clinical staff. I believe this later condition of licence should only come into effect after Mr Burfield has demonstrated at least three months adherence to the treatment requirements within the open unit. As the courts are aware we have successfully rehabilitated clients similar to Mr Burfield and we certainly take his supervision at the Glenside Campus most seriously.
Dr Hustig stated that although Mr Burfield did not express any “overt delusional thoughts”, he still maintained a hostile disposition toward his mother. Dr Hustig therefore considered that it should be a condition of any licence granted that Mr Burfield have no contact with his mother, and that the Clare police be contacted if there are any concerns that he may attempt to have any physical contact with her.
Dr Hustig further considered that Mr Burfield’s compliance with medication and the possible presence of illicit and un-prescribed drugs, including alcohol, be regularly monitored. If any risk of a breach of licence arose, Dr Hustig considered that Mr Burfield should immediately be returned to a secure environment and his licence revoked. He agreed with Dr Nambiar that a correctional services officer should be assigned to his overall case management.
Dr Hustig concluded:
Although I have an apprehension of transferring Mr Burfield to an open unit because of the potential for him to abscond, this is counter balanced by the high dose of Zuclophenthixol decanoate that he is currently receiving and it will take several weeks for him to relapse into overt psychosis and even in the short term the amount of antipsychotic would nullify the effect of amphetamines in kindling his psychosis. At present however I believe there is a window of opportunity to engage Mr Burfield in effective rehabilitation as he has managed to reach a level of insight over his illness and the negative effect of substance abuse that he did not have prior to the assault on his mother. I believe that while he is under the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Services of Glenside Campus his licence should be supervised by the Director of Rehabilitation Services or his nominee.
During oral evidence, Dr Hustig explained what was meant by the term “open ward” or “open unit”:
Basically, an open ward is simply a ward where, during the daytime hours, the doors are not locked. Certainly, there is various levels of supervision of clients within that dependant upon their risk assessment.
Dr Hustig gave evidence that each patient undergoes a weekly “risk assessment” to evaluate the risk of aggression, suicide and absconding and further assesses symptoms in their illness profile. The level of supervision to be applied to a particular patient would depend upon this assessment.
To limit any risk of absconding, Dr Hustig agreed that it would be suitable for Mr Burfield to be escorted by two members of staff when moving between Grove Closed and the North Glen ward. While at the North Glen ward, Dr Hustig considered that Mr Burfield should be required to sign a log each half-hour.
Dr Hustig gave evidence on the measures that should be taken in the event Mr Burfield absconded. This involved immediate police notification and notification of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Dr Hustig opined that even if Mr Burfield absconded he would not be in a psychotic state due to the medical treatment that he is currently undertaking. He was confident that any deterioration in his state would be detected long before he absconded. Dr Hustig considered that there were sufficient resources for the proposed plan to be successfully put in place.
Dr Tomasic
Dr Tomasic, a consultant psychiatrist, supported a change in the applicant’s licence conditions. In her opinion, Mr Burfield’s agitation and anger had reduced significantly, he had responded well to treatment, was less thought disordered and was more able to process information and make reasoned decisions.
On the issue of the proposed treatment plan, Dr Tomasic stated:
The proposal is that, if the court decides that Mr Burfield is released on licence conditions to Extended Care Services, that he be restricted to the Glenside campus, that a Community Corrections Officer be allocated, and that random urine drug screens be done. If he were to breach any of his licence conditions or his behaviour deteriorate leading to an increase in risk of harm to others or himself, provision to allow a return to James Nash House would allow for increased assessment and supervision. I note that both his treating team and Extended Care are happy with this plan.
Dr Tomasic also expressed some concern over Mr Burfield’s thoughts toward his mother. However, she considered that this was taken into account by Mr Burfield’s treating team and that the safeguards built into the proposal would provide adequate protection. Nonetheless, she recommended that any breach of conditions or perceived deterioration in his behaviour be “acted on rapidly”.
Victim and Next of Kin Report
As earlier observed, a court cannot release a person or significantly reduce the degree of supervision of a person subject to a supervision order without being satisfied that the defendant’s next of kin and victim have been given reasonable notice of the proceedings. The court must also consider a victim and next of kin report. In the present case, the next of kin and the victim is Mr Burfield’s mother.
Mrs Burfield was notified of this application. Susan Bone, a senior social worker employed by the Forensic Mental Health Service, interviewed Mrs Burfield by phone on 16 August 2006 concerning the application. In her report, Ms Bone summarised the positions:
Mrs Burfield is of the opinion that [Mr Burfield] should remain where he is and should not be moved to any rehabilitation or less supervised wards on the Glenside Campus. She still feels very much at risk [from Mr Burfield] and does not feel that the mental health services would be able to save her if anything was to go wrong and [Mr Burfield] did not comply with the new conditions of licence. Mrs Burfield felt that [Mr Burfield] was getting more support and assistance than she was, even though this has been offered to her and was quite adamant that she would have to shift and change her life if the condition of licence being sought were granted. Mrs Burfield still feels very unsafe and insecure and feels that [Mr Burfield] is only trying to please the court and the doctors as she has no faith in the fact that [Mr Burfield] has really changed his ideas about wishing to cause her harm.
Mr Burfield has now spent a further 13 months in James Nash House.

During this time, Mr Burfield has continued to progress. It should be noted that the original application for release on licence has been adjourned and that this application now concerns a variation to the supervision order for limited release. Mr Burfield would otherwise reside at Grove Closed ward, an annexure of James Nash House located at the Glenside Campus.
With respect to Grantley Burfield, Mr Burfield’s father, Ms Bone reported:
[Grantley] Burfield stated that as long as the other licence conditions remained the same that some more progress could be made with the rehabilitation of [Mr Burfield] and, that he was still kept under strict supervision, then he felt that the move to a Rehabilitation Ward on the Glenside Campus could be a positive move for [Mr Burfield]. He discussed how he had weekly contact with the defendant and how the medication affected [Mr Burfield] at times. He does try to see [Mr Burfield] when he is in Adelaide.
He did state that he does not feel that the defendant is ready for any form of discharge for some period of time to come but would like him to be able to participate in some other forms of rehabilitation activities to assist with his weight and motivation. He does not have any issues around his safety at present, but is aware that [Mr Burfield’s] mother is going to feel very vulnerable if the licence conditions are varied.
The Proposal
As earlier observed, counsel for Mr Burfield requested that this Court adjourn the application for release on licence and instead sought orders for variation of the supervision order. The variation proposed would allow Mr Burfield to continue residing at the Grove Close ward with strictly limited release for a maximum of three hours a day, two days a week, to an open ward at Glenside.
Drs Hustig and Nambiar gave oral evidence in support of, and to provide further detail to, their respective reports. In particular, they gave evidence as to the proposed plan and safeguards that would be put in place to protect the community. They explained how the proposed plan would be carried out to assess the risks involved in varying the supervision order and to ensure that sufficient measures were taken to protect Mrs Burfield and the community.
Drs Hustig, Nambiar and Tomasic all identified that although Mr Burfield no longer wished to harm his mother, he still felt hostile toward her. Each nonetheless considered that the proposed plan would provide sufficient safeguards to protect Mrs Burfield and the community.
All psychiatrists suggested that Mr Burfield be subjected to alcohol and illegal substance analysis, be required to sign in a logbook each half-hour while in the North Glen ward, that his compliance with medication be closely monitored, and that weekly risk assessment evaluations be undertaken. In relation to his mother, it was suggested that it should be a condition that Mr Burfield have no contact with his mother, and that the Clare police be contacted if there are any concerns that he may attempt to have physical contact with her. All psychiatrists were of the opinion that variation of the supervision order was a positive and necessary step for Mr Burfield’s rehabilitation, subject to appropriate restrictions for the protection of Mrs Burfield and the community.
According to the evidence, Mr Burfield’s hallucinatory experiences have remitted. He is now able to think more rationally about past psychotic episodes and appreciate that they were delusions. Mr Burfield is responding well to treatment, is polite and cooperative, and his propensity toward aggression has significantly reduced. He is no longer using illicit drugs, he has been detoxified from any drug-induced psychosis, and there is no evidence to suggest an intention to abscond.
Whilst Mr Burfield does maintain feelings of anger and hostility toward his mother, it appears that he has no intention to inflict harm upon her. His current treatment regime has “neutralised” his delusional thinking, thereby reducing the risk of harming his mother further. Mrs Burfield has concerns regarding her son’s reduced supervision. However, Mr Burfield has continued to progress since her statement was taken.
I accept the views of the three psychiatrists that a variation of the supervision order is a positive and necessary step for Mr Burfield’s long-term rehabilitation and eventual reintegration back into society.
The risk posed toward Mrs Burfield or the community at large will be substantially lessened and guarded against by the imposition of strict conditions in the proposed supervision order. Under these conditions, any deterioration in Mr Burfield’s mental state should be detected long before he may attempt to abscond and pose a threat to his mother or to the community. I accept the opinion of Dr Hustig that, even if Mr Burfield did attempt to abscond, he would not be in a psychotic or dangerous state due to the medical treatment he is currently undertaking.
I have had regard to the psychiatric reports of Drs Nambiar, Tomasic and Hustig and the report of Ms Bone setting out the views of Mrs Burfield, as the next of kin and victim, and of Grantley Burfield, Mr Burfield’s father. I have also had regard to the oral evidence of Drs Nambiar and Hustig given before this Court on 27 February 2007. I have considered the matters referred to in sections 269T and 269S of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
I consider that the terms of the order set out below adequately balance the interests of safeguarding Mrs Burfield and the community at large with the benefits to Mr Burfield.
Orders
Having regard to the circumstances of Mr Burfield’s attack on his mother, it is important that the terms of the variation to the supervision order be spelt out with particularity so that those concerned with the obligation of monitoring Mr Burfield’s compliance and those concerned with the protection of Mrs Burfield and the community have a clear understanding of their obligations. For this reason I have provided further restrictions to the order proposed by Mr Burfield’s counsel and consented to by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Those concerned with the management and supervision of Mr Burfield must understand that they carry a heavy responsibility and that diligent and proper monitoring is a critical feature of this order. In particular I refer to paragraph 3 of the order set out below. While in the Grove Closed Unit, Mr Burfield is, I have been informed, in a more secure environment than if located at James Nash House. On his leaving the closed ward, the risk that he may abscond arises. To this end, the orders require that he be supervised in transit from the closed ward to the open ward. While in the open ward he will be generally in the view of a supervising officer, though not necessarily at all times. The provision of the signing of the log together with a level of supervision in the open ward will enable any absconding from the open ward to be promptly detected. This would appear to be the area of risk. Accordingly, any breach of the conditions with respect to the open ward, and in particular of the signing of the log, must, and I underscore must, be the subject of immediate notification to the Director of Forensic Mental Health Services, the Director of Rehabilitation Services, the DPP and the Police. Mr Burfield must understand the need for strict, and I emphasise strict, compliance with every condition. The log must be maintained, and if there is a failure to sign the log on time the matter must be reported and the breach must be acted on.
I am prepared to make the following orders pursuant to section 269P(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. These orders have been consented to by the DPP and have, at my request, been reviewed and considered to be appropriate by Drs Nambiar and Hustig.
1)That the Order made on 15 September 2005 committing Mark Andrew Burfield (“the applicant”) to detention be revoked and that there be substituted in its place the following supervision order pursuant to section 269P(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“the Act”);
2)That the applicant be released on licence subject to the following conditions:-
(1)    That the applicant continue to reside in the Grove Closed Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (“the Grove Closed Unit”), an annexe of James Nash House located in the grounds of the Glenside Campus of the Royal Adelaide Hospital (“Glenside Campus”), and not leave that Unit except as provided for under paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) below.
(2)    That the applicant be under the care and supervision of the Director of the Forensic Mental Health Service (“the Director”) or a consultant psychiatrist nominated by him, in consultation, with respect to the applicant’s movements within Glenside Campus, with the Director of Rehabilitation Services at Glenside Campus.
(3)    That the applicant be released from the Grove Closed Unit to go to, and remain within, the North Glen ward in the grounds of Glenside Campus, for periods of up to a maximum of three (3) hours on a maximum of two (2) days per week to attend programs of education and socialisation.
(4)    That while moving between the Grove Closed Unit and the North Glen ward, the applicant comply with all directions given to him by two (2) escorting staff members.
(5)    That while he is at the North Glen ward, the applicant comply with all directions of staff with regard to reporting to staff as required and to confirm his presence within the ward by signing the ward attendance log every half-hour.
(6)    That the applicant not leave the grounds of Glenside Campus other than for a purpose authorised by the Director or his or her nominee as being directly relevant to his medical or dental treatment, and then only if he is accompanied by a member or members of staff of Glenside Campus.
(7)    That the applicant be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer appointed by the Parole Board of South Australia (“the Parole Board”) and obey all such lawful directions with respect to non-medical matters as may be given to him by that supervising officer.
(8)    That the applicant be under the care of the Director or a consultant psychiatrist nominated by him or her and obey any directions given to him from time to time with regard to medical and psychiatric treatment and medication; and further that he be psychiatrically reviewed on a regular basis as directed by the Director or a consultant psychiatrist nominated by him or her.
(9)    That the applicant continue to receive his medication current at the date of this order as required by his consultant psychiatrist, and further that no alteration or reduction in such medication occur without the approval of the Director or a consultant psychiatrist nominated by him or her.
(10) That the applicant not consume alcohol.
(11) That the applicant not use, possess or administer any narcotic or psychotropic drug or any drug which is not medically prescribed for his use by a legally qualified medical practitioner, and that he take any such prescribed medication only at the prescribed or recommended dosages.
(12) That the applicant, whenever required by the Director or his nominee, shall submit himself for breath or urine analysis for the purposes of determining whether there is present in his body any alcohol or drug, such breath tests to be administered at random and such urine drug screens administered at a minimum of once a week.
(13) That the applicant comply with all directions of staff of the Grove Closed Unit and/ or the North Glen Ward with respect to search procedures.
(14) That the applicant comply in every respect with the treatment plan prepared and in force from time to time pursuant to section 269Q of the Act.
(15) That the applicant not contact, approach or communicate with, whether directly or indirectly, Mrs Rae Burfield.
(3)This program of graduated release must be suspended and the applicant must be confined to the Grove Closed Unit or transferred to James Nash House at Oaken in the State of South Australia at the direction of the Director if:-
(a)    The applicant, in the opinion of the Director, shall have breached any condition or conditions of this Order; or
(b)    The Director is of the opinion that an action or pattern of behaviour of the applicant may give rise to a risk to a breach of any such condition; or
(c)    The Director is of the opinion that the applicant is in need of a level of security that cannot be provided at Glenside Campus; or
(d)    The Director is concerned that this program of release is not progressing satisfactorily;
Provided that:-
(e)    Such suspension and/ or return to James Nash House shall be for a period of not more than 14 days without further order of this Court; and
(f)     The Director shall notify the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and this Court forthwith upon the applicant’s return to James Nash House pursuant to this paragraph.
(g)    The Director shall notify the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the office of the Commissioner of Police forthwith of any breach of the aforesaid conditions or any other operation or application of paragraph (3) of this order.