Re HP (No 2)
[2019] VSC 768
•19 November 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
| AT MELBOURNE | |
| COMMON LAW DIVISION | S CI 2014 06906 |
| IN THE MATTER of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 | |
| – and – | |
| IN THE MATTER of a review of a non-custodial supervision order pursuant to s 31 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment & Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – and – IN THE MATTER of an application by HP | |
---
JUDGE: | PRIEST JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 November 2019 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 November 2019 |
DATE OF REASONS: | 25 November 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re HP (No 2) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 768 |
---
CRIMES MENTAL IMPAIRMENT – Review of non-custodial supervision order – Homicide – Paranoid schizophrenic – Applicable considerations – Order revoked – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 ss 31, 33.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms Z Broughton | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms J Carpenter | Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Attorney-General | Mr J Tierney | Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office |
| For the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services | Ms S Pathan | Department of Health and Human Services |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
‘HP’ was made subject to a non-custodial supervision order (‘NCSO’) pursuant to s 32(1) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘the Act’) on 22 November 2016.[1]
[1]Re HP [2016] VSC 701 (Bell J).
On 19 November 2019, I made the following orders:
1. Under s 33(1)(d) of [the Act], the non-custodial supervision order made on 22 November 2016 is revoked.
2. Pursuant to s 75 of the Act it is ordered that any information that might enable the applicant to be identified must not be published.
3. Reserve liberty to apply.
These are my reasons for those orders.
History of proceedings
On 11 March 2004, HP, then aged 39 years, killed his mother whilst psychotic. He had experienced command auditory hallucinations to kill her, and he did so holding the delusional belief that she was ‘the Devil’. The hallucinations and resultant killing occurred in the context of recurrent paranoid schizophrenia associated with poor compliance with medication. It seems that HP — who was first given anti-psychotic medication in 1989 — had been non-compliant with his medication for five days prior to the attack on his mother.
HP was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental impairment on 27 June 2005. He then became liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Act. Pursuant to s 26 of the Act, a custodial supervision order (‘CSO’), with a nominal term of 25 years, was imposed upon him, the order commencing on 12 March 2004. For the next decade or so, HP remained under the treatment and supervision of Forensicare at Thomas Embling Hospital.
In December 2014, after HP had progressed through a rehabilitative regime at Thomas Embling Hospital, Bongiorno JA first granted him extended leave for 12 months. Further extended leave of the same duration was granted on 30 November 2015 by J Forrest J.
On 22 November 2016, Bell J ordered that HP’s CSO be varied to a NCSO. A number of conditions were attached, the terms of which it is unnecessary to set out.[2]
[2]See ibid [59].
By a notice dated 9 August 2019, HP made an application for revocation of the NCSO pursuant to s 33(1)(d) of the Act.
The application for revocation came before me on 19 November 2019. At the conclusion of evidence and oral argument that day, I made the orders referred to above and indicated that I would later provide reasons.
The positions adopted by interested parties
Section 33(1) of the Act provides that, upon an application under s 31 for revocation of a NCSO, the Court must either confirm the order; vary the conditions of the order; vary the order to a CSO; or revoke the order.
Counsel for both HP and the Secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services (‘the Secretary’) submitted that the NCSO should be revoked. That course was opposed by counsel for the Attorney-General, who submitted that the NCSO ought be confirmed.[3]
[3]As is usual practice, apart from demonstrating compliance with s 38C of the Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions took no active part in proceedings.
Legislative framework
The Court’s powers on an application for revocation of a NCSO are set out in s 33 of the Act, which so far as relevant provides:
33Variation or revocation of non-custodial supervision orders
(1) On an application under section 31 for … revocation of a non-custodial supervision order …, the court must, by order—
(a)confirm the order; or
(b)vary the conditions of the order; or
(c)vary the order to a custodial supervision order; or
(d)revoke the order.
(2) Unless the court revokes the order, the court may direct that the matter be brought back to the court for further review at the end of the period specified by the court.
(3) A direction may be given under subsection (2) more than once.
Importantly, s 39(1) of the Act provides that, in deciding whether to (make, vary or) revoke a supervision order, the Court ‘must apply the principle that restrictions on a person’s freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community’.[4] Further, s 40(1) provides that in making the decision to (vary or) revoke an order, the Court must have regard to:
(a) the nature of the person’s mental impairment or other condition or disability; and
(b) the relationship between the impairment, condition or disability and the offending conduct; and
(c) whether the person is, or would if released be, likely to endanger themselves, another person, or other people generally because of his or her mental impairment; and
(d) the need to protect people from such danger; and
(e) whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the person in the community; and
(f) any other matters the court thinks relevant.
[4]Counsel for the Secretary cited NOM v DPP (2012) 38 VR 618, 637–8 [60] (Redlich and Harper JJA and Curtain AJA) (‘NOM’).
Moreover, under s 40(2), the Court cannot order a person to be released unconditionally — or significantly reduce the degree of supervision to which that person is subject — unless it:
(a) has obtained and considered the report of at least one registered medical practitioner or registered psychologist, who has personally examined the person, on—
(i)the person’s mental condition; and
(ii)the possible effect of the proposed order on the person’s behaviour;
(ab) in the case of a person who is subject to a supervision order, has obtained and considered the report of a person having the supervision of the person subject to the order;
(b) has considered the report submitted to the court under section 41(1) or (3) (as the case may be);
(c) is satisfied that the person’s family members and the victims of the offence with which the person was charged (if any), have been given reasonable notice of the hearing at which the release or reduction is proposed to be ordered;[5]
(d) has considered any report of the family members or victims made under section 42;
(da) …; and
(e) has obtained and considered any other reports the court considers necessary.
[5]Having regard to the affidavit of Ms Louise Wilkinson, of the Office of Public Prosecutions, sworn 12 November 2019, I am satisfied that HP’s family members (who are also the victims of the offence with which she was charged) were, by a letter dated 7 October 2019, given reasonable notice of this hearing and of their entitlement to submit a report for the Court’s consideration. In the result, a report dated 31 October 2019, signed by HP’s sister on behalf of his family (eight named members thereof) was tendered by the DPP.
As is required by s 40(2)(a), I have considered the report of Dr Ria Zergiotis, Consultant Psychiatrist, Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (Forensicare), dated 23 October 2019, the effect of which I will later discuss.
HP’s current circumstances
HP is a 54-year-old single man who has a well-established diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and a past history of polysubstance use. He is in receipt of the disability support pension and he resides in a rental unit in a north-eastern suburb of Melbourne. HP shops and cooks for himself; watches movies for entertainment; and attends the gym and ‘Boxercise’ classes. He has an administration order managed by State Trustees, and is being supported under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’), his support worker attending the hearing with him.
Family report
Before turning to the expert opinion evidence, out of deference to HP’s family, I note the contents of their report made under s 42 of the Act for the purposes of the hearing in this Court. Overall, I consider that the report confirms that HP’s current situation is stable, and that he has supports in his daily life. Thus, one of HP’s sisters, as spokesman for the family, stated:
Over the last year, my sister [RR] and I have visited [HP] several times and I have seen him on a few occasions alone. His sister [JH] is sometimes in contact by mail. When we visit we are not concerned for our safety or the safety of anyone else. [HP’s] other siblings still have no contact with him as they find it too difficult.
I also contact him every 2 to 3 weeks by phone to provide a level of support and [HP] occasionally contacts me for advice. [HP] has now lived independently in his flat for over 3 years and he continues to engage in all his activities. He has a busy routine and is enjoying his life. My perception of him is that he is capable, can live independently and is stable.
He has recently been assigned an NDIS worker who visits him weekly and [HP] has established a good relationship with him. We are very happy that this has occurred as the worker can assist [HP] in solving day to day problems and it also provides a level of oversight. We feel it is very important that this contact continues.
[HP] will continue to see his Case Worker and Psychiatrist at NEMSTS [North East Mobile Support & Treatment Service] monthly (on the same day) for the time being and will eventually transition to attending a Clozapine clinic, I assume monthly.
We have always had concerns about the length of time between [HP’s] visits to NEMSTS and feel that more frequent oversight by clinical staff would be necessary to pick up changes in [HP’s] mental state. We are now more comfortable with this that he is seeing his NDIS worker weekly.
We understand that at some point in the future [HP] will be supervised by his GP only. We find this concerning as GPs are not usually trained to treat patients with [HP’s] diagnosis and history.
Expert evidence
Dr Zergiotis has been HP’s supervising psychiatrist since September 2018.[6] She is familiar with his background, having been his treating psychiatrist on the Jardine rehabilitation unit at Thomas Embling Hospital (‘TEH’) from December 2012 to November 2014.
[6]In her report, Dr Zergiotis set out her qualifications and experience as follows:
I am a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist working at Forensicare and currently working at the CFMHS [Community Forensic Mental Health Service]. I have been employed as a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist with Forensicare since 2004. I obtained my Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from Monash University in 1995 and became a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of psychiatrists (RANZCP) in 2004. I have also completed a Bachelor of Science and Master of Psychological Medicine from Monash University. I completed my Certificate in Forensic Psychiatry in 2011. I have previous experience working on the NCSO Consultation-Liaison Program at Forensicare between 2006 to 2012. I have also previously worked extensively within the hospital and prison services in Forensicare.
In her report of 23 October 2019, Dr Zergiotis noted that HP had been an inpatient of TEH since 2005, and that he had progressed slowly through the rehabilitation program, mainly due to his anxiety and social difficulties. Psychological work on HP’s social skills had been an ongoing focus during his time at TEH.
Dr Zergiotis reported that HP was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his early twenties. He had numerous admissions to public hospitals during the 1990s and had a number of contacts through the private psychiatric system. Symptoms of mood instability in addition to psychosis were present during this time and his treatment was complicated by poor compliance, poor insight and several relapses of his psychotic illness. In January 2004, HP was admitted to the Alfred Hospital psychiatric unit with thought disorder, persecutory delusions and an increase in aggressive behaviour towards his family. He was placed on antipsychotic medication and mood stabiliser medication before being discharged on a Community Treatment Order to supported accommodation. He was, however, subsequently poorly compliant with his medication during the period leading up to the killing.
Prior to the killing, Dr Zergiotis reported, HP had no formal history of offending. HP stated, however, that he had a history of verbal and physical aggression towards his family members, although police had never laid formal charges and his family members had never taken out any intervention orders.
Dr Zergiotis said that, after the killing, HP was re-admitted in March 2004 to the Alfred Hospital psychiatry unit and was commenced on the antipsychotic medication, Clozapine. He was transferred to TEH between March and May 2004, and was readmitted to TEH in July 2005 after receiving a CSO under the Act. Currently, HP is treated with Clozapine at a dose of l00 mg in the morning and 550 mg at night. He also takes the anticonvulsant and mood stabiliser medication Sodium Valproate at a dose of 500 mg twice daily.
In her report, Dr Zergiotis set out in detail HP’s progress immediately before and following the imposition of the CSO, and his progress on extended leave and his progress on the NCSO. I need not repeat in any detail what she said — I have taken it into account — save to note the following observations made at a Forensicare Supervision Review on 6 August 2019:
On mental state examination, [HP] attended punctually for his appointment. He was neatly attired, in casual clothing, and wearing a baseball cap. He presented as settled, with a relaxed demeanour. [HP] greeted us warmly and was cooperative with the review process. [HP] was noted to be coherent, alert and fully orientated. His manner was pleasant. He maintained good eye contact. [HP] demonstrated good attention/concentration, maintaining focus throughout the review. There were no depressive themes noted. He discussed his football team at length (Essendon) and the interviewers preferred teams. There was no evidence of thought disorder. There was a concrete aspect to his thinking and speech. He did not express any delusions or perceptual disturbance. There were no thoughts of self-harm or harm to others expressed in the review. He had good insight into his illness and is aware of his diagnosis and need for long term treatment.
The impression was that [HP] presented with a stable mental state and a good level of remission of his schizophrenia. There were no current risk issues. He continued to comply with all conditions of his NCSO. The treating team had indicated their support for revocation of the NCSO as [HP] has demonstrated good engagement and stability of his illness for an extended period of time.
When describing her contact with HP’s current treating team at the North East Area Mental Health Service (‘NEAMHS’), and in particular, HP’s treating psychiatrist, Dr Bethany Whitehouse, Dr Zergiotis said:
[Dr Whitehouse] described that [HP] has been stable for an extended period of time, and is at low risk of disengaging with the treating service or becoming non-compliant with medication, were the NCSO to be revoked at some point. She reported that despite [HP’s] social skills deficits and fluctuating anxiety that he is able to live independently and has never missed an appointment or a blood test over the last two years whilst on the NCSO.
Dr Whitehouse reported that [HP] would remain with the NEAMHS for a lengthy period of several years given he is on clozapine treatment, and that he may graduate to the Clozapine Clinic at the NEAMHS, maintaining the same consultant psychiatrist and have a Clozapine Coordinator, who [HP] has previously worked with in the past. At some point in the future, if clinically appropriate, [HP’s] treating psychiatrist and the Clozapine Coordinator may liaise with [HP’s] general practitioner … to discuss the Shared Care Clinic with the NEAMHS, where primary treatment is provided by the GP and the NEAMHS psychiatrist would review [HP} every six months.
Very significantly, having carried out an appropriate risk assessment, Dr Zergiotis offered the opinion that HP ‘currently represents a low risk of future violence to the community’. In Dr Zergiotis’ view, HP ‘continues to present as a low risk of future violence given his current progress and stability in the community setting’. The NCSO, Dr Zergiotis said, ‘plays a minor role in [HP’s] ongoing risk management’, given ‘the longitudinal history of stability of his illness, good insight and good engagement with community services’. Dr Zergiotis supported the revocation of the NCSO.
Counsel for the Attorney-General having indicated that he wished to cross-examine Dr Zergiotis, she gave evidence before me at the hearing on 19 November 2019. It was confirmatory of the opinions contained in her report, and I need not set it out. I note, however, the following passage of Dr Zergiotis’ cross-examination:
Now, on the role of the NCSO, do you consider the NCSO to provide some protective support, in terms of mitigating future risk of violence?---Ah, I think it had played a role earlier on, certainly. I note that [HP] participated in two years or so extended leave, when he was under more intensive treatment through the community integration program of Forensicare. Then his CSO was turned to NCSO in 2016, and I think that oversight was useful during the transition phases. But given now he’s been very stable for several years, he’s negotiated the transitions between Thomas Embling Hospital, the Austin, ah community recovery program, and now he’s in stable housing that he’s happy with. Ah, I’m happy with that level of support he’s received at those transition points in his community reintegration and I’m of the opinion now that the NCSO plays a very minor role in that risk management or oversight, at this point in time.
Would you accept, Dr Zergiotis, that given [HP’s] high baseline level of risk, the NCSO still provides some role in protecting the community?---Ah, no. From a longitudinal perspective, … knowing [HP’s] history very well, and the way he’s negotiated his community reintegration through the various stages of extended leave and on the NCSO, and it’s been roughly five years now in the community, with no incident of evidence of relapse, I don’t believe the NCSO serves a function in risk management in [HP’s] case.
Earlier in her cross-examination, Dr Zergiotis had said that
[HP’s] illness has been more controlled. There are no positive psychotic symptoms. He demonstrates excellent insight into his illness, ah and early warning signs of relapse. Ah, and there’s nothing to suggest any history of any violence or violent ideation ah in the preceding few months. So that is my assessment of the see all clinical factors.
Dr Bethany Whitehouse, Consultant Psychiatrist, presently is HP’s treating psychiatrist through NEAMHS, and has been since shortly after June 2017. She prepared a report, dated 22 October 2019, and also gave evidence before me, supporting revocation of the NCSO. Dr Whitehouse reported that blood tests show that HP has been compliant with his medication. She observed that HP
speaks fluently and shows no formal thought disorder, however speech is often loud and is somewhat monotonous and perseverative. Content of thought does not include any psychotic symptoms, and no suicide ideas or thoughts to harm others. He shows quite concrete thinking style. His insight into his illness seems robust, with a good understanding of past symptoms and need for ongoing treatment for life. He has shown compliance throughout treatment at this service.
Dr Whitehouse also reported as follows:
With regards the resources available for the treatment and support of [HP] in the community, he attends the [North East Continuing Care Service] monthly and has access to his case manager via phone or at arranged appointments between medical appointments. Since the introduction of the antipsychotic medication Clozapine, people on this medication have had to remain linked to the community mental health clinic as part of the requirements of treatment. Therefore it is not foreseeable that he will be discharged from this service. There is now in place a support coordinator and individual worker under NDIS to assist him learn to socialise and increasingly interact within the community. He has a regular general practitioner.
With regards to whether [HP] presents any danger to himself or the community, given his past history there is increased risk of [HP] being aggressive in the event of a relapse of positive symptoms of schizophrenia. However, given his stability since 2005 on Clozapine, his increased level of insight and demonstrated engagement with treatment and compliance with treatment, his risk of becoming non-compliant is very low. If he remains on Clozapine there is an excellent chance of him remaining free of positive symptoms indefinitely.
I am supportive of [HP’s] application to have his supervision order revoked and I anticipate [HP] will remain in treatment if that was to occur.
Dr Whitehouse’s cross-examination by counsel for the Attorney-General was as follows:
Dr Whitehouse, is there any issue about anxiety? You stated that you don’t see an effect of this risk of future violence at all. Is there any chance … an increase in his anxiety might lead to a withdrawal from treatment?---Ah, I think his anxiety draws him to treatment. In the past, when he’s been anxious about issues to do with his housing or services, he’s um, requested help from our service to solve the problem.
Thank you. And can I ask what would your involvement be if the NCSO was revoked? Would you have any further involvement in [HP’s] treatment?---Yes, I would remain is consultant psychiatrist um, ah, indefinitely, for as long as I’m at the service, and then it would pass on to my replacement. Ah, he will remain at the [NEAMHS] as long as he lives in our area for treatment.
And would you continue to liaise with Forensicare and Dr Zergiotis?---Ah, we could ask Forensicare for support or advice if we were concerned ah, but I understand that that would likely change if the NCSO was revoked.
When you say, ‘would likely change’, what do you mean?---Ah, well my understanding is that the, the Forensicare services um, disengage at that point.
Would you agree, Dr Whitehouse, that the Forensicare services are valuable to [HP]?---I think they have been valuable, but they I don’t know that they have ah, a place into the future, or, or are required into the future.
Do they serve as a protective factor in mitigating any future risk?---No, I think our service could serve that purpose.
Finally, I note that Mr Thomas Tomy, HP’s Case Manager at NEAMHS, both provided a report (dated 23 October 2019) and gave evidence. I note the following from his report:
[HP] seems to have good understanding about the importance of medication in maintaining his mental health and recovery. Additionally, he demonstrates good insight on mental illness, symptoms and early warning signs as well as the link between substance abuse and mental illness. He is help seeking and takes good responsibility for his treatment. [HP] consistently complies with the treatment regime including regular reviews, metabolic screening and physical health monitoring which is part of Clozapine therapy. [HP] remains abstinent from all forms of substances except tobacco smoking. He attends all appointments on time without any reminders.
…
With regard to risk to himself or others, because [HP] is currently fully compliant with his treatment and demonstrates good insight; remains recovery focused and help seeking, his current presentation has led me to believe that he is at very low risk of harm to himself or to the community as long as he continues with the treatment. I am supportive of [HP’s] application for revocation of NCSO
Submissions
Counsel for the Attorney-General concentrated his submissions on s 40(1)(c) of the Act, and on ‘historical risk factors’. He submitted that, whilst it was ‘accepted the risk of future offending has been assessed as low’, the Attorney General contended ‘that there remains a sufficient risk of harm materialising for the [NCSO] to be confirmed’. Further, counsel argued that, given the current conditions of the NCSO, the restraint on HP’s liberty and autonomy ‘are very limited’, and that the current NCSO is consistent with the principles set out in s 39 of the Act. As to the consideration contained in s 40(1)(d) of the Act, counsel put that ‘the Attorney-General submits that there’s plainly extremely high need to protect the community from the danger that [HP] might relapse into psychotic symptoms and commit acts of violence, but I say that as a general proposition and not by reference to the risk assessments provided by Dr Whitehouse and Dr Zergiotis’.
HP’s counsel adopted the submissions of counsel for the Secretary, who submitted that revocation is consistent with the principles in s 39 of the Act. Citing NOM, counsel submitted that supervision is a restriction on liberty and autonomy that can be justified only where it is found to be necessary. The evidence establishes, so counsel contended, that the NCSO is not necessary in this case for the safety of the community. In NOM, counsel submitted, the Court was critical of an approach that characterises NCSO conditions as a ‘limited’ factor in making a decision to continue a NCSO when it is otherwise not warranted.
Analysis
Quite clearly, supervision under the Act is a restriction on liberty and autonomy, that can only be justified where it is found to be necessary. In making the decision to (confirm, vary or) revoke HP’s supervision order, I have endeavoured to apply the principle that restrictions on a person’s freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community.[7]
[7]See NOM, 637–8 [60].
As I have said, Dr Zergiotis, who had been HP’s treating psychiatrist at TEH, and who has significant familiarity with him and his condition, expressed the views that HP has good insight into his illness, and that he is aware of his diagnosis and need for long term treatment. According to Dr Zergiotis, HP has demonstrated good engagement, and his illness has been stable, for an extended period of time. HP’s current mental state is stable, and he has a good level of remission of his schizophrenia, such that there are no current risk issues. In Dr Zergiotis’ opinion, HP presents a low risk of future violence, and the NCSO plays only a minor role in his ongoing risk management, given the history of stability of his illness, and his good insight and good engagement with community services. Cross-examination by counsel for the Attorney General did not cause me to doubt the soundness of Dr Zergiotis’ opinions. I consider them to have a deal of force.
Dr Zergiotis’ opinions were, I consider, supported by HP’s current treating psychiatrist, Dr Whitehouse. In her view, HP had robust insight into his illness, with a good understanding of past symptoms and need for ongoing treatment ‘for life’. Based on her evidence, I am satisfied that there is a very low risk of HP becoming non-compliant, and, importantly, that HP will continue to have ongoing treatment and support if the NCSO is revoked. Once more, I do not regard the force of Dr Whitehouse’s opinions to have been weakened by cross-examination.
In turn, the views of Dr Whitehouse were supported by those of Mr Tomy. Cross-examination by counsel for the Attorney General was directed partly to showing that Mr Tomy had no qualifications in psychiatry. That is of little moment. Mr Tomy is trained in social work and has been HP’s case manager. He has observed first-hand HP’s demonstrated insight into his mental illness, symptoms and early warning signs. Mr Tomy has also observed HP’s commitment to, and compliance with, his treatment regime, and the fact that HP seeks help when he needs it. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his evidence.
On the uncontradicted evidence before me — none of which was diminished in effect by cross-examination by counsel for the Attorney-General — HP’s supervision under a NCSO is no longer justified.
HP has been subject to supervision under the Act for some years, and, generally speaking, has exhibited only positive progress since being treated with Clozapine. The evidence strongly indicates that he has good insight into his condition, and that he has demonstrated a commitment to continuing his treatment. HP has had extended engagement with his current treating team, and has strong supports from his treating psychiatrist, case manager and NDIS support worker. The thrust of the expert evidence is that he presents a continuing low risk of violence, such that there is little likelihood that he presents a danger to others because of his mental impairment.
Based on the psychiatric opinion, I consider that there is little need to protect the community from any danger arising from HP’s mental impairment, and I note — particularly from what Dr Whitehouse and Mr Tomy have said — that there are adequate resources available for HP’s treatment and support in the community.
These factors led me to conclude that it is consistent with the safety of the community to revoke HP’s NCSO. In my view, restrictions on his freedom and personal autonomy can no longer be justified.
Conclusion
For these reasons, on 19 November 2019 I made an order that the NCSO made on 22 November 2016 be revoked.
---
0
2
0