Re R C

[2008] VSC 545

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 1508 of 1998

IN THE MATTER OF an Application pursuant to the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997:

RC

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 November 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 545

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Ms. J Carpenter	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Ms V Topp	Mental Health Legal Centre
For the Attorney- General	Ms. L Thai	Victorian Government Solicitor’s office
For the Department of Human Services	Mr. B Patterson	Department of Human Services

HIS HONOUR:

1. I am satisfied, having had the benefit of counsel's submissions, that the orders sought should be made, that is to say, that the hearing date of 28 November 2008 be vacated and that the matter be listed for a date, early in August 2009.  A specific date can be ascertained from Master Kings which is suitable to the parties so that the reviewee can come up from Bairnsdale.  The matter will be listed in August 2009 for a Major Review.

1. I note that Balmford J made appropriate Orders on 3 December 2003 and thus it would be, pursuant to s.35(1)(b) of the Act, that the review occur no later than next month, that is to say, 3 December 2008.  It will not be, in fact, now held at that time but adjourned over for six months so that the reviewee can receive the benefit of psychiatric counselling as is foreshadowed.

1. The reason that I considered that it is was not appropriate to sign the orders in chambers but rather to have a hearing was threefold.  The first is a matter of regularity, that is to say, the Orders of the Court and the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act should be observed.  The consequence of s.35(1)(b) was that the matter be reviewed by 3 December 2008.

1. The second is to public safety; to ensure that the adjournment did not cause any increase in public risk.  I am satisfied it does not.  The third is that it was in the interests of the reviewee. The whole purpose of this scheme under the Act is that reviewees do not just disappear and are not cared for by the system.  In the old days, there were occasions when persons with mental issues were not properly attended to by the court system and were not properly and regularly reviewed.  The benefit of the system under the present Act is that reviewees are regularly reviewed and therefore, any adjournment in the time to which they are to be reviewed should not be taken lightly. 

1. For those reasons, I am satisfied that the orders sought should be made.