R v Steele (No 3)
[2013] SASC 191
•13 December 2013
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEELE (No 3)
[2013] SASC 191
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Gray
13 December 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - RELEASE ON LICENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - MENTAL HEALTH, HOSPITAL SECURITY ORDERS, ETC - REVIEW
On 21 May 2008, the defendant was found mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder pursuant to section 269FA(5)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and committed to detention pursuant to an order made under section 269O(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The defendant applied for and was subsequently granted release on licence subject to conditions on 20 September 2012. Following a psychiatric report received on 19 June 2013, the defendant applied to vary his current conditions of licence. Whether the defendant should progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan. Three psychiatric reports and a victim and next of kin counselling report received.
Held:
(1) It is appropriate for the defendant to progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan (at [29]).
(2) The defendant will need to apply again to this Court in order to progress any further in the transition plan (at [29]).
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269FA(5)(b), s 269O(1)(b)(i), s 269Q, s 269R, s 269T(2) , Part 8A, referred to.
R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162; R v Steele [2012] SASC 55, considered.
R v STEELE (No 3)
[2013] SASC 191Criminal
GRAY J.
This is an application to vary current conditions of licence.
On 21 May 2008, I recorded my finding that Matthew Robert Steele, the defendant and applicant, was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder, the subject of the information, pursuant to section 269FA(5)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The objective elements of the offence of murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On 18 July 2008, following the receipt of further materials, including a victim and next of kin counselling report,[1] victim impact statements, an antecedent report of the defendant and a further psychiatric report,[2] I made an order pursuant to section 269O(1)(b)(i) committing the defendant to detention under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I fixed a limiting term of life.
[1] Section 269R(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides:
For the purpose of assisting the court to determine proceedings under this Division, the Crown must provide the court with a report setting out, so far as reasonably ascertainable, the views of—
(a) the next of kin of the defendant; and
(b) the victim (if any) of the defendant's conduct; and
(c) if a victim was killed as a result of the defendant's conduct—the next of kin of the victim.
[2] Prepared pursuant to section 269Q of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
In the course of my published reasons for the making of the above findings and orders,[3] I set out the circumstances surrounding the death of Umberto Crisante together with the evidence on which I relied in making an order of mental incompetence.
[3] R v Steele [2012] SASC 55.
On 21 October 2011, the defendant applied for a variation to his supervision order and release on licence. The Court received annual reports concerning the defendant’s psychiatric condition together with evidence from three psychiatrists with respect to the application for release.
The defendant’s treating psychiatrist, William Brereton, advanced a detailed six stage transition plan. Stages one and two involve restricted day leave from James Nash House, the secure mental health facility where the defendant is currently detained, accompanied by James Nash House staff who are to maintain line of sight contact with the defendant at all times. Stages three to six in the transition plan involve a progressive relaxation of ongoing restrictions. Stages one and two were described in the following terms:[4]
[4] R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162, [9].
STAGE ONE:
During stage 1, the focus will be community re-integration. [The defendant] would be offered structured, supervised and graded outings into the community. This would include walks, drives in a government car, visits to the local supermarket, increasing exposure to different social settings and visits to community based mental health programs.
Duration
Minimum 8 weeks
Level of supervision
2 staff from James Nash House.
[The defendant] will remain in line of sight at all times.
Agencies involved
· Community Corrections (fortnightly)
· Inpatient Team JNH
STAGE TWO:
During stage 2, the process of community re-integration would continue with the added involvement of Neami (a non government organisation) who will provide psychosocial support.
Duration
Minimum 8 weeks with at least 1 outing per week
Level of supervision
1 staff from James Nash House & 1-2 Neami workers.
[The defendant] will remain in line of sight at all times
Agencies involved
· Community Corrections (fortnightly)
· Neami
· Inpatient Team JNH
Stages 3 to 6 as previously proposed have been revised.
On the hearing of the application, the defendant first submitted that the Court should authorise the entire transition plan. However, as the hearing proceeded, the defendant indicated that he was content to limit his application at this time for a licence to be granted permitting stages one and two to proceed. The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant a licence for the release of the defendant that was limited to stages one and two of the transition plan.
Pursuant to my directions, the family of the deceased were heard on the application. They were represented by counsel. They opposed any release on licence, but accepted that if the Court was disposed to order release, it should go no further than to permit stages one and two to be implemented. Counsel for the family of the deceased submitted that if any form of licence was to be granted, it should be on terms geographically limited so as to avoid any risk of contact between the defendant and the members of the family of the deceased.
On 20 September 2012, I ordered that the defendant be released on licence on certain terms and with limitations.[5] I was only prepared to approve release on licence on terms that accorded with stages one and two. The conditions of the defendant’s release on licence are set out in my earlier reasons.[6]
[5] R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162.
[6] R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162, [15].
On 19 June 2013, the Court received a psychiatric report and an amended proposed rehabilitation program dated 4 June 2013 from Dr Brereton. This report was intended to update the Court regarding the defendant’s progress on his leave program. The report explained that during stage one of his leave program, the defendant was able to take 13 leaves over an eight week period. It was agreed by all involved that he had progressed well. The defendant’s experience of anxiety had been mild. The report further explained that the defendant had faced some stressors outside the leave program, including loss of the prospect of having access to his son, but that he coped well with these stressors and talked through the issues with staff. All the defendant’s urine drug screens were negative.
The annual report explained that the defendant began stage two of his leave program on 26 February 2013. During this time, the defendant successfully attended a Drug and Alcohol Group for approximately seven weeks. By 26 April 2013, the defendant had completed 17 outings over a ten week period while on stage two. The defendant’s behaviour on these outings was described in largely positive terms as follows:
[The defendant] had taken walks, drives in a Government car, used public transport, visited shopping centres, met with his family in the community, attended Community Corrections appointments, and attended a library to improve basic IT skills and practice for a Learner Driver’s written test. He also attended some NEAMI social groups and undertook tasks in the community such as attending Medicare. [The defendant] continued to report some anxiety at times, but dealt with this appropriately, including putting into place CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) techniques that he has learnt with the Psychologist. [The defendant] reported some severe anxiety on two occasions; both when he mislaid something. On the first occasion it was his Birth Certificate and on the on second, his wallet. Despite these peaks in anxiety he responded appropriately. Throughout the leave program [the defendant] presented in a polite manner and exhibited good social skills both with staff and the community at large. He has been observed to be appropriately assertive when making decisions and his confidence managing tasks in the community has grown. His budgeting skills have been good and he has shown he can plan ahead.
His mental state remained stable throughout, with no return of psychotic symptoms.
Again, the defendant’s drug screens were all negative. The defendant received positive feedback from staff at James Nash House, the Forensic Community Mental Health Team and Community Corrections with regard to his behaviour. According to Dr Brereton’s report, in a meeting held on 26 April 2013, it was agreed by all parties that they would support the defendant progressing to the next stages of his leave program. Dr Brereton described the defendant’s progress as follows:
[The defendant] has progressed well with his program of leaves. He has experienced some anxiety in certain situations, as expected, but he has dealt with this appropriately and applied the psychological techniques learned in therapy. Most importantly, [the defendant’s] mental state has been stable with no re-emergence of psychotic symptoms. In addition, [the defendant’s] and relationship with staff has been without fault. He has been polite and cooperative and followed all directions. He has been forthcoming and straightforward in his interactions with staff and openly discussed concerns as they have arisen. He has demonstrated that he understands the need for intrusive supervision and questioning from professionals and has responded positively to it. The team support [the defendant] progressing to the next stages of his rehabilitation program.
Dr Brereton explained that a new Forensic Step-Down Rehabilitation Unit, known as Ashton House, would be open to receive residents by the end of August 2013. Ashton House is designed to bridge the gap between inpatient forensic service and supported community placements. With regard to the defendant’s rehabilitation, Dr Brereton opined:
As [Ashton House] will offer the community based rehabilitation that [the defendant] now requires, but can also provide greater monitoring and supervision than a [Community Rehabilitation Centre], I believe it is now our best option for [the defendant’s] future management rather than planning to discharge him to Elpida [Community Rehabilitation Centre]. [The defendant] would remain within Forensic Mental Health Services where his case is well known and, as I will be providing the Consultant input to [Ashton House], I would remain [the defendant’s] supervising psychiatrist. The proposal that [the defendant] be considered for discharge to [Ashton House] rather than Elpida [Community Rehabilitation Centre] was discussed in the meeting on 26th April 2013 … and had the support of all involved.
Dr Brereton acknowledged that the recommendation to discharge the defendant to Ashton House rather than Elpida would require the leave program previously provided to the Court to be altered. A new proposed rehabilitation leave program was provided. The introduction to the revised plan included the following:
…
A Multi-agency discharge plan had been developed that saw Mr. Steele transition from James Nash House to a Community based Mental Health Rehabilitation Centre. He was referred to and accepted onto the Elpida Waiting List. Since then, the community based Forensic Step Down Rehabilitation Unit [Ashton House] has been built. It is situated on Fosters Road, outside of the grounds of James Nash House, and should be operational by the end of August 2013. Now this is available, the team believe it is the most appropriate option for Mr. Steele.
If the court agrees, it is proposed that Mr. Steele’s Rehabilitation Leave continues with a broadly similar structure to that given previously but incorporate the [Ashton House] rather than Elpida CRC. This will allow for ongoing assessment and management of his mental health needs and address his rehabilitation goals. [The defendant] commenced Stage 1 of his leave program on the 10/12/12 and moved to Stage 2 on the 26/02/13, following a meeting at JNH with all stakeholders on the 22/02/13. A further meeting was held on the 26/04/13 to review [the defendant’s] progress during Stage 2 of his leave. It was agreed at this meeting that [the defendant] was suitable to move on to stage 3 subject to court approval.
The original overall plan was broken down into 6 Stages which identified at what point each agency became involved, the level of supervision required and proposed time frames for each of these stages. The remaining 4 stages of leave have been altered.
Regular reviews will continue to occur with all agencies involved and discussions within the inpatient team will occur on a weekly basis as a minimum.
…
Stages 3 and 4 of the revised plan replaced stages 3 and 4 of the earlier plan and are in the following terms:
STAGE THREE:
During stage 3, the process of community re-integration would continue with the support of Neami who will provide psychosocial support and supervision to [the defendant]. JNH staff would no longer provide direct supervision but would continue to liaise and plan all leave for [the defendant]. Staff from [Ashton House] would be available to assist with leave plans.
Stage 3 would see Mr. Steele engage in a structured, goal directed rehabilitation program including linking in with community groups and start a 1:1 drug and alcohol program in the community; the latter will be provided by OARS.
Duration
Minimum 6 weeks
Level of supervision
2 Neami workers or [Ashton House] staff
Mr. Steele will be supervised during all leaves. .
Agencies involved
• [Ashton House] Team
• Community Corrections (fortnightly)
• Neami
• Inpatient Team JNH
• 1:1 OARS for Drug and Alcohol relapse prevention
STAGE FOUR:
During stage 4, Mr. Steele will have a structured program but move to the unaccompanied phase of supervision. He will commence spending time at [Ashton House] during the day but he will not be permitted off-site without staff. Mr. Steele will be expected to participate in rehabilitation at [Ashton House] and this will include linking in with community programs.
Duration
Minimum 6 weeks
Level of supervision
Unaccompanied, with close supervision. Mr. Steele will walk to/ from [Ashton House]. [Ashton House] staff will make a phone call to staff on Clare ward to confirm arrival. Once there, [the defendant] will be required to remain on site unless accompanied by staff (either NEAMI or [Ashton House] staff).
Mr. Steele will be sighted every hour whilst at [Ashton House] and this will be logged.
Agencies involved
• [Ashton House] Team
• Community Corrections (weekly) with random drug and alcohol testing (urine and breath) both through corrections and at JNH - not less than once per week.
• Neami
• Inpatient Team JNH
• 1:1 OARS for Drug and Alcohol relapse prevention
In the light of the annual report, the defendant applied for variation to his current conditions of licence. Pursuant to section 269T(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the Court received two additional psychiatric reports from psychiatrists Craig Raeside and Narain Nambiar regarding the defendant’s suitability for the next stage in the plan for his release on licence. The Court also received an addendum report from Dr Brereton regarding the risk of the defendant’s exposure to illicit substances in a less closely supervised environment and regarding the operation and effectiveness of Ashton House.
In his report dated 29 August 2013, Dr Raeside noted the following in relation to the defendant’s current psychiatric state:
[The defendant] told me that he was well at present and had been well for some time. He described stable mood without any depression or elevation of his mood. He has not had any psychotic symptoms for many years, such as hallucinations, extreme paranoia or other bizarre ideas, or disorganisation of his thinking. He has had ongoing anxiety symptoms as will be noted. He added that a family friend died the previous week, which naturally upset him, but he said he was “getting used to the idea” and did not describe any alteration in his underlying mental state. He said his anxiety had been variable.
[The defendant’s] self-assessment of his ongoing mental state is consistent with the clinical notes and Dr Brereton’s observations in his report.
…
On interview [the defendant] presented as an appropriately dressed and groomed man for the inpatient setting. He was reactive in mood, did not appear depressed or unduly anxious, and did not display any psychotic features such as perceptual disturbances, delusional ideas, or psychotic thought disorder.
In relation to the defendant’s suitability for the next stage in the plan for his release on licence, Dr Raeside observed:
… I make reference to Dr Brereton’s detailed account of [the defendant’s] progress since 2008. Of particular relevance he describes [the defendant’s] mental state as having been stable, particularly without any relapse of psychotic symptoms, or evidence of drug use during periods on leave from James Nash House. There has been mild anxiety, considered to be as expected, and not unreasonable, which [the defendant] has addressed appropriately with staff. This has been the case even in the case of external stressors, again which he dealt with appropriately. He has attended a variety of rehabilitation groups to assist with his mental health, as well as drug and alcohol abuse. The outings from James Nash House have gone well. Positive reports have been received from staff members, both James Nash House and NGO staff.
Dr Brereton reported the change in plan for [the defendant] to attend [Ashton House] and gives a helpful summary of the purposes and structure of such a unit. In particular, I note that apart from various security measures and supervision that clinical staff are present on site 24 hours a day. I would agree with Dr Brereton’s comment that [Ashton House] would offer greater monitoring and supervision than at CRC. Additionally, given its physical proximity, it is close to James Nash House and would allow continuity of care with Forensic Mental Health Services.
Dr Raeside highlighted the risk of the defendant accessing illicit drugs while in the community, but noted that in the event of use of illicit drugs, a relapse of the defendant’s underlying psychotic illness would not likely occur immediately:
Clearly the risk of [the defendant] accessing illicit drugs (and alcohol) is increased during periods in which he is in the community, compared to being in a secure psychiatric facility such as James Nash House. However, I believe that these risks can be minimised with ongoing supervision, such that he is in company with a staff of NGO member during those periods in the community. Further, ongoing weekly urine drug testing would be appropriate, or more often if there was seen to be a need to check. Such testing would be sufficient to identify the use of any drugs.
However, I would make the point that whilst the use of illicit drugs would obviously have the potential to cause a relapse of [the defendant’s] underlying psychotic illness, but such does not usually occur immediately. Whilst obviously there may be the features of acute intoxication related to illicit drug use, a drug induced relapse of Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia usually takes some time, perhaps a matter of weeks, rather than immediately. As such, should there be evidence of [the defendant] accessing illicit drugs, there would be opportunity to increase security (through breach of his conditions), prior to a relapse of mental illness and associated risk of violence.
Dr Raeside ultimately concluded that it would be appropriate for the defendant’s licence conditions to be varied in accordance with Dr Brereton’s recommendations:
… I believe that should the Court vary [the defendant’s] conditions so that he could be transferred to [Ashton House] there are appropriate measures in place to continue to limit his access to illicit drugs, but even if he did there would be measures in place to minimise any adverse effects from drug use.
I am therefore in agreement with Dr Brereton’s recommendations and management plan. I believe that [the defendant] would be appropriate to have his licence conditions varied so that he could progress to step three of the plan before the Court. In fact, the soon to be available [Ashton House] offers better rehabilitation prospects in [the defendant’s] case than might otherwise have been the case earlier with a plan for him to be transferred to a [Community Rehabilitation Centre].
Dr Nambiar, in his report dated 18 September 2013, noted that the defendant has been selected for Ashton House because “he has been entirely stable for a considerable period of time and meets the criteria for active rehabilitation due to his willingness to cooperate and high level of motivation and compliance”. Dr Nambiar contrasted the defendant’s present behaviour and circumstances to when the offending was committed:
Significant factors differ now compared with when his offence occurred. The fact that he has been symptom-free, on his current medication for a very considerable period of time. He is able to better manage his anxiety. Additionally he has been alcohol and substance free for a considerable period of time since he was admitted to James Nash House in 2006. Seven years of being alcohol and substance free whilst being medicated significantly reduces the risk of further relapse and the effects of psycho-social education and rehabilitation which has reinforced to him the virtues of remaining well and the factors that contribute to that and his commitment to that process significantly reduce the risk of relapse.
Dr Nambiar assessed the suitability of Ashton House and observed:
[Ashton House] is not only highly supervised and well-staffed but access to alcohol or illicit substances would be limited by a lack of opportunity and the use of those substances would be detected very quickly given the fact that [the defendant] would be subject to clinical assessment before he left the facility and on return and there would be protocols around testing for illicit substances inherent in the program. Any signs of intoxication would be easily detected and followed by suspension of any leaves from the facility, due notification to the Court and a review of his suitability for the program.
Dr Nambiar recommended that the defendant progress to stage 3 and beyond in his rehabilitation plan:
I would respectfully ask the Court to consider and I would support the option of [the defendant] progressing on from Stage 2 to Stage 3 and beyond with the object of the exercise that [the defendant] continues to develop his skills, manages his anxiety with the aim of eventually spending increasing amounts of time at Ashton House.
I would agree with Dr Brereton that a cautious approach is recommended and that [the defendant] should not progress beyond Stage 5 until the matter returns back to Court for further consideration. If the Court agrees his transition program from Stages 3 to 5 should remain the same as proposed by Dr Brereton in his 4th June 2013 report but that the Elpida facility is now replaced with Ashton House.
Dr Brereton opined in his addendum report dated 9 September 2013 that the defendant’s risk of returning to drug abuse is low. Dr Brereton acknowledged, however, that the defendant’s history of substance abuse and offending is considerable and therefore the degree to which he is supported, monitored and supervised should only be reduced gradually. In the event that the defendant were to use substances of abuse, Dr Brereton predicted the following results:
If [the defendant] were to use substances of abuse again, the consequences are hard to predict given that they are dependent on the type of drug used, circumstances and quantity. However I believe it unlikely that [the defendant] would suffer an immediate catastrophic breakdown in his mental state as a result of drug use, given the stability of his mental state in recent years and the fact that he would have ongoing antipsychotic treatment.
Ultimately, Dr Brereton concluded:
In conclusion then, I believe, with regards to drugs, [the defendant] is a low risk of using. If he were to use I think it unlikely that there would be immediate and severe adverse effects beyond the acute intoxication. I am also of the opinion that there would be sufficient measures in place during transition and then residence in Ashton House to detect drug use and intervene in a timely manner should it occur; thus I believe it is reasonable to manage [the defendant’s] risk in Ashton House. I would like to reassure the Court that I am not dismissive of [the defendant’s] risk and I regard his risk as significant given the gravity of his offence and his history. In my opinion a significant risk might be a high risk of something relatively less harmful occurring or a low risk of something grave occurring. [The defendant’s] risk falls into the latter category. In keeping with the principal in section 269S, i.e. a least restrictive approach to management that is consistent with the safety of the community, I respectfully recommend the Court permit the treating team to progress with [the defendant’s] rehabilitation as there is every indication clinically that the safety of the community can be maintained. While keeping [the defendant] detained is the only way of guaranteeing no risk, a longer period as an inpatient in James Nash House will not further lessen the risk at the point of discharge.
Victim and Next of Kin Report
A victim and next of kin counselling report dated 30 September 2013 was received. As in the earlier proceedings, members of the deceased’s family were represented at the hearing of the application. The wife and daughter of the victim did not oppose the application that the defendant proceed to the proposed stages 3 and 4. In their written statement they observed:
They view [Ashton House] as being a preferable option to the Elpida facility although they do equate it to the opening of a new school – it is an unknown quantity and success will depend on the quality of its as yet untested staff and systems.
In the circumstances they do not oppose [the defendant’s] application to proceed to stages 3 & 4 of the proposed release plan but they would like the Court to limit the variation of the licence to allow for [the defendant] to proceed only to the conclusion of stage 4 on the current application.
They acknowledge the unavoidable need for the licence to be varied to allow for [the defendant] to be present at the nearest bus stops to [Ashton House] on Fosters and Grand Junction Roads for the sole purpose of accessing public transport. They ask that in all other respects the existing orders as to limitation of movement ((n)-(p)) remain in place.
The family expressed concern regarding stages 5 and 6 of the proposed release plan. They observed:
The ... family’s concerns arise with respect to stages 5 and 6 when unsupervised leave from the grounds commences and they would prefer that the Court require of [the defendant] a further application in order that updated reports can be considered prior to proceeding to those final stages.
More generally, the family had the following concerns with the entire release plan:
The ... family does not profess to be happy about the application and acknowledge that this is because it means [the defendant] is one step closer to being among them in society.
They consider that [the defendant’s] progress at [James Nash House] is unremarkable in that within that facility he has been shielded from the temptations of alcohol and illicit drugs and the vicissitudes of life outside and the level of supervision is so high.
They worry about the chance of a swift decline that may occur with the relaxing of supervision and the potential for access to the previously abused intoxicants. They are aware that addiction is a sickness and addicts wrestle with life-long temptations. They worry that [the defendant] will fall prey to the same delusional thinking that haunts most addicts, namely the belief that he is well and can therefore resume old habits.
They point to the other major risk factor to a decline in his health and that is the increased stressors in the outside world. Without the immediate support available while supervised, [the defendant’s] anxiety levels will be sorely tested when dealing with volatile issues such as appear to exist in his immediate family. They worry that the unsuspecting public will be “guinea pigs” to a trial that may fail.
In the light of these concerns, the family requested that strict conditions be imposed with respect to random testing for illicit drug use and alcohol breath testing upon every return to the facility. They also requested a condition similar to that of an intervention order, preventing the defendant from approaching or communicating directly or indirectly with any members of the family.
In the same victim and next of kin counselling report, the defendant’s parents expressed their support of the application.
Ashton House – Stage Three
Ashton House comprises seven buildings built in close proximity to one another, a short distance from and outside the secure perimeter of James Nash House. Six of the buildings are one or two bedroom units built to allow independent living. They are equipped with facilities such as a kitchen, laundry and individual bedrooms. One larger building will operate as a staff hub with offices, interview areas and space for group activities. Up to ten residents may be housed at Ashton House.
As earlier mentioned, Ashton House is designed to bridge the gap between inpatient forensic services and supported community placements. Ashton House will focus on rehabilitation and the reintroduction of residents into the broader community. Residents of Ashton House will be expected to participate in an individualised rehabilitation program, including accompanied and unaccompanied leave off the site for activities such as work, education and recreation. Residents will be encouraged in time to manage their own day to day lives. A multi-disciplinary team of government-employed clinicians will be on site. Residents will be supervised by a consultant forensic psychiatrist, a team leader, a psychiatric registrar, nursing staff, Allied Health – this includes a psychologist, occupational therapist and a social worker, and community rehabilitation workers with a minimum qualification of a Certificate IV in Mental Health.
The units at Ashton House are designed to reflect real living conditions in the community. Residents will not be locked in. There are, however, a number of security measures designed to protect staff and the community, including the presence of clinical staff on site 24 hours per day, fixed and portable duress alarms with a direct response from South Australia Police, and an intercom system to allow communication between the staff hub and the units. Residents will be subject to a night-time curfew. The perimeter of the Ashton House site is monitored overnight by alarmed infra-red beams and CCTV cameras, with the footage recorded. There are sensor and security lights outside each unit and the staff hub. Staff are able to increase on-site lighting with flood lights.
A leave database will be kept to record the location of residents. Regular checks will be conducted. All residents taking leave will have to report to staff before and after their leave for a review of their mental state. There will be testing for drug and alcohol use. Residents who were inpatients in James Nash House will be subject to clinical review in the form of weekly visits by various staff, with weekly multi-disciplinary team meetings to review progress and treatment.
With regard to the suitability of Ashton house for the defendant, Dr Brereton opined:
As [Ashton House] will offer the community based rehabilitation that [the defendant] now requires, but can also provide greater monitoring and supervision than a [Community Rehabilitation Centre], I believe it is now our best option for [the defendant’s] future management rather than planning to discharge him to Elpida [Community Rehabilitation Centre]. [The defendant] would remain within Forensic Mental Health Services where his case is well known and, as I will be providing the Consultant input to [Ashton House], I would remain [the defendant’s] supervising psychiatrist. The proposal that [the defendant] be considered for discharge to [Ashton House] rather than Elpida [Community Rehabilitation Centre] was discussed in the meeting on 26th April 2013 … and had the support of all involved.
[The defendant] still has to complete his program of leave out of James Nash House before he could be discharged to [Ashton House]. [The defendant] would still have to come back before the Court for approval before he could be transferred from James Nash House to [Ashton House]. Despite it being part of the Forensic Mental Health Service, it appears to me that it would count as a significant reduction in the degree of supervision to which [the defendant] is subject (Section 269T(2)).
It was arranged that I would view Ashton House. I visited Ashton House on 10 October 2013. Counsel for the defendant and for the Director were also in attendance. Counsel for the family sought and was granted permission not to join the view.
Upon attending Ashton House, I was informed of the high quality standard of care and supervision that is to be applied to people resident at Ashton House. It is a well-designed facility. There are high level security systems in place. The Police are directly contactable in the event of assistance being required. While Ashton House is a step-down facility from the higher level care and monitoring of James Nash House, it remains a secure facility. The staff to resident ratio is high, with a small number of residents capped at 10. Ashton House represents a sensible and secure first stage to starting to readjust to life in the community. I am satisfied that the proposed level of security should be sufficient to house the defendant on stages 3 and 4 of the new leave program.
Conclusion
I am satisfied on the basis of the psychiatric reports, the victim and next of kin counselling report and the level of security offered at Ashton House that it is appropriate for the defendant to progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan. The defendant will need to apply again to this Court in order to progress any further in the transition plan.
Minutes of order should be prepared and submitted for my approval.
3
2
1