Re MP (No 2) - [2018] VSC 299

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION	S CI 2015 02919

IN THE MATTER of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997
IN THE MATTER of a review of a non-custodial supervision order pursuant to s 32(5) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment & Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 June 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re MP (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 299

---

Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 — Section 33 — Review of non-custodial supervision order — Homicide — Paranoid schizophrenic — Applicable considerations — Order revoked.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J Taylor	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms J Carpenter	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Attorney-General	Ms J Swanwick	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services	Ms L Torres	Department of Health and Human Services

HIS HONOUR:

History of proceedings

During the morning of 20 May 2010, whilst suffering an acute psychotic episode, MP stabbed her mother to death.

On 22 June 2011, a jury in the Supreme Court found MP not guilty of her mother’s murder due to mental impairment.

As a result of the jury’s verdict, MP became liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment & Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘the Act’). Pursuant to s 26 of the Act, a custodial supervision order, with a nominal term of 25 years, was imposed upon her, the order commencing on 22 June 2011.

On 9 June 2015, I granted MP extended leave under s 57(1) of the Act,[1] allowing her to be absent from her place of custody, on the basis that I was satisfied on the evidence available that the safety of MP — or members of the public — would not be seriously endangered as a result of MP being allowed extended leave.[2] That grant of extended leave was subject to the following conditions:

(a) [MP] be under the supervision of the authorised psychiatrist of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (VIFMH) or his or her delegate;
(b) [MP] complies with the lawful directions of the authorised psychiatrist of the VIFMH or his or her delegate;
(c) [MP] complies with such treatment, testing, case management, medical and other appointments recommended by the authorised psychiatrist of the VIFMH or his or her delegate;
(d) [MP] reside at an address approved by the authorised psychiatrist of the VIFMH or his or her delegate;
(e) [MP] not leave the State of Victoria without the permission of the authorised psychiatrist of the VIFMH or his or her delegate;
(f) [MP] abstain from the abuse of alcohol and from the use of illicit drugs.

[1]In the Matter of MP [2015] VSC 265.

[2]See s 57(2) of the Act.

By…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re MP (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Re MP (No 2) [2018] VSC 299
Case: [2018] VSC 299
Decision Date: 4 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court was a review of a non-custodial supervision order under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. The applicant, MP, had been convicted of murder but was found unfit to be tried due to a paranoid schizophrenic condition. The respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought a review of MP's non-custodial supervision order, arguing it should be revoked due to concerns about MP's ongoing mental health and risk to the community. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the non-custodial supervision order imposed on MP should be revoked in light of his mental health condition and the risk he posed to the community. The Court needed to consider the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Section 33, which outlines the criteria for reviewing and revoking such orders. Additionally, the Court had to weigh the public interest in ensuring the safety of the community against MP's rights as an individual with a mental impairment.

The Court found that MP's mental health condition remained a significant concern, as evidenced by his ongoing delusional beliefs and violent tendencies. Despite some improvements, the Court concluded that MP still posed a risk to the community. The Court emphasised the importance of balancing the risk to public safety with MP's rights and the need for continued treatment and supervision. Ultimately, the Court decided that the non-custodial supervision order should be revoked and MP should be placed in a secure mental health facility for continued treatment and monitoring.

The Court ordered the immediate revocation of MP's non-custodial supervision order and directed that MP be placed in a secure mental health facility. The Court also mandated that MP receive ongoing treatment and supervision to address his mental health condition and reduce the risk he posed to the community. The decision underscored the importance of carefully considering the balance between public safety and the rights of individuals with mental impairments in such cases.

Orders