ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TTR [2026] WASC 152

[2026] WASC 152 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL CITATION : ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TTR [2026] WASC 152 CORAM : FIANNACA J HEARD : 23 APRIL 2026 DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : CLMI 2 of 2025 BETWEEN : ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND TTR Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) - Application for an extended custody order - Assessment of risks, adequacy of the protection of the community and necessity - Appropriate limiting term - Turns on own facts Legislation: Criminal Code (WA) Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) -- 1 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 Page 2 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) Result: Extended custody order made for a period of four years Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Ms R Panetta Respondent : Ms K Gorski Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid WA -- 2 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 Page 3 Cases referred to in decision: Attorney General v BWG [2025] WASC 486 Attorney General v DAMD by his guardian ad litem the Public Advocate [2025] WASC 460 Attorney General v PHB by his guardian ad litem Alan Van Der Steen [2025] WASC 312 Attorney General v TKB [2025] WASC 511 Attorney General v WAW [2025] WASC 324 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 State of Western Australia v Raw [2022] WADC 19 The State of Western Australia v Chokolich [2024] WASC 346 -- 3 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 4 FIANNACA J: The application and its history Introduction 1 On 30 January 2025, the Attorney General for the State of Western Australia (the applicant) made an application to this court, pursuant to s 105(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) (CLMI Act), for an extended custody order (ECO) to be made in respect of the respondent under s 110 of the CLMI Act, and for orders pursuant to s 106(1) of the CLMI Act. The application was supported by an affidavit and annexures, but at the final hearing of the application, the evidence on which the applicant relied was adduced in the form of a Book of Materials consisting of four volumes, which were received as exhibits 1 to 4 in numerical order, and oral evidence from two witnesses. 2 An application under s 105 of the CLMI Act may be made by the Attorney General in respect of a 'supervised person', as defined in that Act.1 At the time of the application, the respondent was a supervised person, in that she was subject to a custody order that had been made and continued in the following circumstances. Alleged offence and initial criminal proceedings 3 On 10 July 2020, the respondent was arrested and subsequently charged with the offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to her mother in a circumstance of aggravation (aggravated GBH), contrary to s 297(1) and (3) of the Criminal Code,2 which is a 'serious offence' for the purposes of the CLMI Act.3 The circumstance of aggravation was that the respondent was in a family relationship with the victim. The offence was alleged to have been committed that day at Kalbarri.4 4 The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge in the Geraldton Magistrates Court on 28 January 2021 and was committed to the District Court of Western Australia for sentencing. The State presented 1 CLMI Act s 9. 'Supervised person' is defined to mean 'a person subject to a supervision order'. 'Supervision order' is defined to include a 'custody order', which is defined to mean an order of a kind referred to in s 49 of the CLMI Act made under specified provisions of the CLMI Act. Section 49 is in pt 5 of the CLMI Act. I will refer further to the statutory context below. 2 Criminal Code 1913 (WA). 3 CLMI Act sch 1 div 1 subdiv 3. 4 Exhibit 1, page 3. -- 4 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 5 an indictment on 2 March 2021. However, a question was subsequently raised by the court as to the respondent's mental fitness to stand trial (which also encompasses an accused person's capacity to enter a plea to the charge). That issue was determined under the legislation in force at that time, the repealed Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) (Repealed Act). The making of the custody order - unfitness to stand trial 5 The hearing in respect of whether the respondent was unfit to stand trial was conducted before Bowden DCJ. The issue was determined on the basis of psychiatric reports tendered in the proceedings; neither party required any of the experts to give oral evidence. The evidence established that the respondent suffers from schizophrenia, more specifically described as 'chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia'.5 6 On 25 February 2022, Bowden DCJ found that the respondent was unfit to stand trial in relation to the charge as a result of a mental impairment, applying the criteria in s 9 of the Repealed Act.6 His Honour was also satisfied that the respondent would not become fit to stand trial within a period of six months.7 Accordingly, his Honour quashed the indictment, as his Honour was required to do under s 19(1) of the Repealed Act.8 His Honour was then required to make either a custody order, being an order that the respondent be kept in custody in accordance with pt 5 of the Repealed Act, or an order releasing the respondent.9 Having regard to the circumstances of the alleged offending and the evidence in respect of the respondent's continuing mental illness, his Honour made a custody order pursuant to s 19(1) and (4) of the Repealed Act.10 The effect of the order, under pt 5 of the Repealed Act, was that the respondent was to be detained in an authorised hospital, a declared place, a detention centre or a prison, as determined by the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board, until released by an order of the Governor.11 5 Exhibit 1, page 5. 6 See State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [37]; Exhibit 1, page 73. (The respondent's name has been anonymised for the purposes of this judgment, as is the practice in proceedings of this kind.) 7 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [40]; Exhibit 1, page 73. 8 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [41], [118]; Exhibit 1, pages 73, 84. 9 Repealed Act s 3. 10 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [118]; Exhibit 1, page 84. 11 Repealed Act s 24. -- 5 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 6 Limiting term set in respect of the existing custody order 7 The CLMI Act came into force, in relevant respects, on 1 September 2024.12 The Repealed Act was repealed from that date. Pursuant to the transitional provisions of the CLMI Act, the custody order made in respect of the respondent by Bowden DCJ became an 'existing custody order' under the CLMI Act13 and had effect as if it were a custody order made under pt 5 of the CLMI Act.14 8 The CLMI Act removed the 'Governor's pleasure' model of indefinite detention that applied in respect of a custody order under the Repealed Act and introduced the 'limiting term' model pursuant to s 50 of the CLMI Act.15 The latter requires the court to set a limiting term in respect of a custody order, such that the custody order ceases to have effect at the expiration of the limiting term16 unless an ECO is made. 9 By s 261(1) of the CLMI Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia (the DPP) was required to apply to the District Court as soon as practicable after commencement of the CLMI Act for the court to set a limiting term for the existing custody order, and, by s 261(2), the court was required to hear and determine the application as soon as practicable. Pursuant to s 264(1), the court must set a limiting term under s 50 of the CLMI Act if an application is made under s 261. The effect of these provisions is that, for the purposes of setting a limiting term, the existing custody order is to be regarded in the same way as a custody order made under the CLMI Act, to which s 50 applies. 10 An application was made by the DPP, in accordance with s 261(1), on 2 September 202417 and was heard by Flynn DCJ on 5 December 2024.18 The application was determined on the basis of materials in a brief prepared for the proceedings by the Office of the DPP. The brief included an 'Amended Statement of Material Facts',19 the decision of Bowden DCJ and psychiatric reports that had been before his Honour when he found the respondent to be unfit to stand trial. It appears there was some additional information before Flynn DCJ which his Honour said brought him 'up to date after the observations in the custody order 12 See CLMI Act s 2(b) and SL 2024/175 cl. 2. 13 CLMI Act s 254(1). 14 CLMI Act s 254(2). 15 The State of Western Australia v Chokolich [2024] WASC 346 [6]. 16 CLMI Act s 51. 17 Exhibit 1, page 100 (transcript of reasons of Flynn DCJ). 18 Exhibit 1, pages 88 - 112. 19 Exhibit 1, pages 86 - 87. -- 6 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 7 decision'.20 His Honour did not specify what that information was, but it is apparent from the transcript of the proceedings that some additional information was referred to in the parties' submissions. 11 As Flynn DCJ explained in his reasons, by s 50(2) of the CLMI Act, a limiting term is the best estimate of the term of imprisonment that the court would have imposed if sentencing the respondent for the alleged aggravated GBH offence, assuming that the respondent had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and not taking into account any mental impairment the respondent may have.21 Further, by s 50(3), the court must assume that the person has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and that there is no sentencing option other than a term of imprisonment. As his Honour explained, the assumption of a plea at the earliest opportunity requires the court to reduce the limiting term by not more than 25 per cent in recognition of the benefit that such a plea has to the State and any victim or witness.22 By s 50(4), the court may take into account any time that the person has already spent in custody in relation to the offence, and may order that the limiting term be taken to have commenced on an earlier day on that basis, which reflects the power a court has, when sentencing an offender, to backdate a sentence on that basis. 12 On 5 December 2024, Flynn DCJ, having taken all relevant matters into account, set a limiting term of four years in respect of the existing custody order, backdated to commence on 10 July 2020, being the date of the respondent's initial arrest and detention in custody in relation to the charge.23 Having regard to the backdating, the limiting term had expired by the time the order was made.24 In those circumstances, s 265(2) of the CLMI Act provides that the existing custody order continues until an order is made under either subsection (4)(a) or (6). By s 265(4), Flynn DCJ was required to make an order either discharging the respondent from the existing custody order,25 or referring the matter to the Supreme Court to be dealt with under s 265(6),26 which enlivens this court's jurisdiction to make an ECO in respect of an existing custody order. However, prior to making either order, his Honour was required by s 265(5) to adjourn the proceedings until the Minister having responsibility for administration 20 Exhibit 1, page 104. 21 Exhibit 1, pages 100, 101. 22 Exhibit 1, page 101. 23 Exhibit 1, page 106. 24 Exhibit 1, page 106. The expiry date was 9 July 2024. 25 CLMI Act s 265(4)(a). 26 CLMI Act s 265(4)(b). -- 7 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 8 of the CLMI Act27 informed the court that the Minister intended to apply to the Supreme Court for an order under pt 7 div 5 of the CLMI Act (in other words, for an ECO), or that such an application would not be made. 13 Accordingly, his Honour adjourned the proceedings to 4 February 2025 for that purpose, and the existing custody order continued pursuant to s 265(2). Report to the Minister by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal 14 Upon commencement of the CLMI Act in relevant respects on 1 September 2024, the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) was established by s 156. 15 Pursuant to s 254(3) of the CLMI Act, the Tribunal was required, as soon as practicable after commencement day, to review the existing custody order under pt 6 div 4 and provide a report as if the review had been requested by the Minister (ie the applicant) under s 69(1), and consider the need for an ECO in respect of the respondent. The provisions of s 103(3) and (4) applied for the purposes of the latter consideration.28 Those provisions required the Tribunal to provide a report to the Minister on the need for an ECO and, if satisfied that it was necessary that an ECO be made 'so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the [respondent] will commit a serious offence', the Tribunal was required to recommend that the Minister apply for an ECO in respect of the respondent. 16 The Tribunal provided the applicant with a report pursuant to s 254(3) on 19 December 2024. The Tribunal recommended that the applicant apply for an ECO in respect of the respondent. Referral to the Supreme Court 17 As I noted at the outset, the applicant applied to this court for an ECO on 30 January 2025. 18 At the adjourned hearing in the District Court on 4 February 2025, Flynn DCJ was informed that the application had been made. 27 By the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 12(a), references in the CLMI Act to 'the Minister' are to be construed as references to 'the Minister of the Crown to whom the administration of the Act … is for the time being committed by the Governor'. At all relevant times, the Minister has been the Attorney General. 28 CLMI Act s 254(4). -- 8 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 9 Consequently, his Honour made an order under s 265(4)(b) referring the matter to this court to be dealt with under s 265(6). The hearing of the application for an ECO 19 At a directions hearing in this court on 25 February 2025, Whitby J ordered that the application be heard on 14 October 2025, and made orders pursuant to s 106 of the CLMI Act that: (1) the respondent be examined by a psychiatrist (who was to be confirmed by the applicant) for the purposes of the psychiatrist preparing a report to be submitted to the court for use on the hearing of the ECO application; (2) Adult Community Corrections, Corrective Services, Department of Justice (ACC) produce a 'Case Manager's Report' including a 'Proposed Management Plan'; (3) the psychiatrist was to liaise with ACC, Corrective Services, the Department of Justice, and the respondent's legal guardian appointed under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) as to the development of the 'Proposed Management Plan'; and (4) at the hearing of the ECO application, the report provided by the psychiatrist was to stand as the psychiatrist's evidence in chief, and that no further evidence in chief may be adduced without leave of the court. 20 Her Honour made further orders relating to the provision of the reports and the Proposed Management Plan to the applicant, and restrictions in respect of access to 'restricted information'. Her Honour also granted liberty to the parties to apply generally. 21 Dr Edward Petch, a forensic psychiatrist, was subsequently appointed to examine the respondent and provide an expert report for the purposes of s 106 of the CLMI Act. 22 The hearing date was subsequently vacated by consent of the parties due to delays in the provision of the reports that had been ordered. A report prepared by Dr Petch and an Extended Order Assessment prepared by ACC were eventually submitted to the court as part of exhibit 4. 23 The application was ultimately heard by me on 21 January 2026. -- 9 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 10 24 At that time, the respondent was held at the Frankland Centre, Graylands Hospital, where she was under the care of medical professionals with the State Forensic Mental Health Service. Prior to the hearing, Ms Panetta, counsel appearing for the applicant, forwarded to the court and to Ms Gorski, counsel for the respondent, correspondence that had been received from one of the doctors in the medical team treating the respondent. The correspondence was ostensibly on behalf of the team and stated reasons why it was considered preferable by the team that the respondent appear by video link from the Frankland Centre, rather than in person in court. The doctor requested that the court give a direction under s 125(2) of the CLMI Act that the respondent appear by video link. Concerns were raised about the proper care of the respondent and about the welfare of treating staff if the respondent had to be brought to court. However, the respondent instructed Ms Gorski that she wished to attend the hearing in person. Further, Ms Gorski was of the view that, if it became necessary for her to obtain instructions from the respondent, it would be more difficult to do so if the respondent were to appear by video link. 25 For reasons stated by me at the commencement of the hearing, while I considered the concerns raised by the respondent's treatment team to be legitimate, I decided on balance against giving a direction under s 125(2) because of the potential impact on the respondent's counsel to properly represent the respondent's interests, and because ordinarily a respondent is entitled to be present in court. I considered that some of the concerns raised by the respondent's treating team could be dealt with by directions, which I gave at the time I gave my reasons. 26 Accordingly, the hearing proceeded with the respondent present. 27 Before turning to the evidence in the proceedings, it is appropriate to set out further the statutory framework and the legal principles that apply to an application for an ECO. Statutory framework and legal principles 28 As described above, the respondent was dealt with in the District Court initially pursuant to the Repealed Act, which was repealed as of 1 September 2024, the date on which the CLMI Act commenced in relevant respects. The CLMI Act introduced a new statutory regime to deal with people accused of criminal offending who were not fit to stand trial or, alternatively, were not guilty by reason of mental impairment at the time of the alleged offending. -- 10 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 11 29 Pursuant to s 248 of the CLMI Act, an accused who was found to be unfit to stand trial under the Repealed Act is taken to have been found unfit to stand trial under pt 3 div 2 of the CLMI Act. Further, as I noted above, a custody order made under the Repealed Act that was in effect immediately before the CLMI Act commenced continues to have effect as if it were a custody order under pt 5 of the CLMI Act, and is subject to the provisions I outlined above concerning the setting of a limiting term and the application for an ECO. 30 Since the commencement of the CLMI Act, there have been a number of decisions of this court that have considered the proper construction of the provisions of that Act, and the principles that apply on an application for an ECO. I have been greatly assisted by the reasons given in those cases, and I find myself in agreement with the principles that have been elucidated, as I will outline below. Those principles were helpfully drawn together from earlier decisions by Gething J in Attorney General v DAMD by his guardian ad litem the Public Advocate [2025] WASC 460 (DAMD). The earlier decisions included Attorney General v WAW [2025] WASC 324 (WAW) (Lemonis J)29 and Attorney General v PHB by his guardian ad litem Alan Van Der Steen [2025] WASC 312 (PHB) (Lundberg J).30 In Attorney General v BWG [2025] WASC 486 (BWG), Musikanth J adopted the analyses of the law in DAMD, drawing also on WAW and PHB, and extracted the effect of the relevant statutory provisions and legal principles into a number of propositions, which I also respectfully adopt.31 While it is not necessary for me to repeat all that has been said in the previous decisions, it is convenient to outline the following relevant statutory provisions and principles to provide context for the reasons that follow. 31 The objects of the CLMI Act as set out in s 7(1), and relevant at the stage of an application for an ECO, are as follows: (a) to ensure the protection of the community; (b) to ensure persons with mental impairment who are charged with an offence - … 29 Particularly at [45], [54] - [60], [67] - [75] and [81] - [82]. 30 Particularly at [56] - [57], [61] - [62] and [211] - [217]. See also Attorney General v BWG [2025] WASC 486 (Musikanth J) [23], which adopted the analyses in WAW, DAMD and PHB, and Attorney General v TKB [2025] WASC 511 (TKB) (Forrester J) [35] - [52], which adopted parts of the analyses in WAW and PHB. 31 BWG [23]. -- 11 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 12 (iii) are given a fair hearing even if they are unfit to stand trial in accordance with ordinary procedures; and … (iv) are subject to the least possible interference with their rights and dignity; (c) to ensure that persons who are subject to supervision orders - (i) are afforded procedural fairness in relation to the administration and management of those orders; and (ii) are reintegrated into the community in a safe manner. 32 When performing functions under the CLMI Act, by s 7(2) the court must have regard to the following principles (as they pertain to adults): (a) that persons with mental impairment should be subject to the least possible restriction on their freedom consistent with the protection of the community; (b) that persons with mental impairment in the justice system should have access to advocacy services; (c) that persons with mental impairment in the justice system should be provided with the best possible treatment, care and support; (d) that persons with mental impairment in the justice system should be dealt with in a manner that is culturally appropriate; (e) that persons with mental impairment in the justice system should not be subject to outcomes under this Act that restrict their freedom more severely than if they had been convicted of the offence that they have been found to have, or are alleged to have, committed; … (k) that victims of offences committed by persons with mental impairment should have the opportunity to be acknowledged and heard; (l) that the role of carers and families in the treatment, care and support of persons with mental impairment should be recognised. -- 12 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 13 33 These principles are designed to make plain that the regime put into place by the CLMI Act does not constitute a punishment.32 34 Section 8 of the CLMI Act provides that the paramount consideration for the court to consider when performing its functions is the protection of the community. 35 Part 7 of the CLMI Act provides for the making of ECOs or Community Supervision Orders (CSOs) to replace existing custody orders, CSOs or ECOs.33 Proceedings under pt 7 are civil proceedings.34 36 I outlined earlier in these reasons the provisions of the CLMI Act that require the Tribunal to consider the need for an ECO and report to the Minister, and which authorise the Minister to apply for an ECO. 37 If an application is made for an extended order in respect of a supervised person, then by s 106(1)(a) of the CLMI Act, the court must order that the person be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist or other appropriate expert and that a report be prepared and submitted to the court. As I outlined above, an order to that effect was made by Whitby J, and a report prepared by Dr Petch was submitted to the court as part of exhibit 4. 38 An ECO 'is an order that, subject to [the CLMI Act], a supervised person be detained in custody at a place determined from time to time by the Tribunal under pt 6 div 3 for the protection of the community'.35 39 The power of the Supreme Court to make an ECO is found in s 110(1) of the CLMI Act, which provides: The Supreme Court may, on application under section 105(1), make an extended custody order in respect of the supervised person that is to have effect for the term set by the court. 40 Section 110(2) provides that the term set for the order is its limiting term. 41 The test to be applied in determining whether an ECO should be made is contained in s 110(3): 32 WAW [23]; BWG [23(3)]. 33 CLMI Act s 100(1). 34 CLMI Act s 101. 35 CLMI Act s 109(1). -- 13 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 14 Before making an extended custody order, the court must be satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that, to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the supervised person will commit a serious offence, it is necessary to make an extended custody order in respect of the supervised person. 42 A 'serious offence' means an offence listed in sch 1 of the CLMI Act. The offence of aggravated GBH, with which the respondent was charged, is such an offence. 43 Section 110(4) of the CLMI Act provides that, if the court is not satisfied as to the matter in s 110(3), but it is satisfied as to the matter in s 114(2), it may make a community supervision order (CSO) in respect of the supervised person.36 If the court does not make an ECO or a CSO in respect of the supervised person, it must make an order discharging the person from their existing custody order.37 44 I will return to s 114(2) below, but I note at this stage that, while that provision is concerned with the making of an extended CSO, the effect of s 110(4), which empowers the court to make a CSO, would appear to be to engage pt 5 div 4 of the CLMI Act in respect of CSOs. 45 The regime in the CLMI Act in respect of custody orders, ECOs and CSOs, each of which provides a form of preventative restriction for the protection of the community, has drawn comparisons with the scheme for preventative restriction in the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). Consistently with the approach taken in the authorities to which I have referred, generally the principles developed in respect of similar provisions in the HRSO Act (and prior to that, the DSO Act) are apt for the approach to be taken under the CLMI Act with suitable adaptation where necessary. 46 As Gething J observed in DAMD, drawing on observations of Lemonis J in WAW:38 The test in CLMI Act s 110(3) is similar, but not identical, to the test contained in [HRSO Act] s 7(1). One difference is that the HRSO Act provides that the State has the onus of satisfying the court that the person is a high risk serious offender. The CLMI Act does not contain any provisions regarding onus. However, in practical terms, unless the Applicant places sufficient material before the court for it to be satisfied 36 CLMI Act s 110(4). 37 CLMI Act s 265(6). 38 DAMD [21]; WAW [54] - [60]. See also BWG [23(4)]. -- 14 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 15 of the matters in CLMI Act s 110(3) or s 114(2), the court is not empowered to make the relevant order and must discharge the person. (footnotes omitted) 47 As was stated by Lundberg J in PHB,39 and Musikanth J in BWG,40 the effect of this is that the applicant bears the onus of satisfying the court that the criteria for making an ECO have been met. 48 As has been observed in the authorities to which I have referred, a significant difference between the CLMI Act and the HRSO Act is that, where the court is satisfied under the HRSO Act that a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must make a restriction order.41 In contrast, under the CLMI Act, where the court is satisfied that the threshold condition is met, the court may make an ECO.42 However, as Lemonis J observed in WAW:43 [I]f the court is satisfied it is necessary to make an ECO to ensure adequate protection of the community, almost inevitably the court would exercise the power to make such an order. I say 'almost inevitably' in recognition that there might be some unique scenario which militates against the making of an ECO, although at the moment I cannot think of one. 49 As for the test in s 110(3) of the CLMI Act, I agree with the following analysis by Lemonis J in WAW, which has been followed subsequently, and which I consider to be consistent with the definition of 'offence' in the Criminal Code (WA):44 [T]he question of whether a person 'will commit a serious offence' is assessed by reference to whether the person will do an act, or make an omission, that would constitute a serious offence, irrespective of 39 PHB [31] - [32]. 40 BWG [23(10)]. 41 HRSO Act s 48(1). 42 CLMI Act s 110(1). 43 WAW [73]. See also DAMD [22]. I note in passing that, in my opinion, the decisions in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 and Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, that the use of the word 'may' in s 17(1) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act), as it applied at that time, did not confer a discretion to make no order under that provision, do not detract from the conclusion that 'may' in s 110(1) of the CLMI Act confers a discretion, limited as it may be in practice. That is because (1) the context of the use of 'may' in the DSO Act, as it applied at the time of those decisions, was different, and (2) the DSO Act was subsequently amended to replace 'may' in s 17(1) with 'must' for the avoidance of doubt. The legislature must be taken to have been aware of that history in enacting the CLMI Act, such that 'may' should be given its ordinary meaning, which imports a discretion. 44 WAW [45]; DAMD [24]; BWG [23(7)]. See the discussion in Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2020] HCA 20; (2020) 270 CLR 323 [29], [37] and [52] - [56] in respect of what is meant by 'when an offence is committed' in s 7 and s 8 of the Criminal Code. -- 15 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 16 whether the person has sufficient mental capacity to be criminally responsible for that act or omission. Thus, in making the assessment, the court does not take into account the prospect that the person might be found not guilty of the 'serious offence' under s 27 of the Code. This approach accords with an object, and the paramount consideration, of the CLMI Act being the protection of the community. That object and paramount consideration would be significantly eroded if the assessment of the risk the person will 'commit' a serious offence took into account whether the person would have sufficient mental capacity to be criminally responsible for their conduct. 50 I also respectfully adopt the following principles distilled by his Honour in respect of the proper approach to determining whether to make an ECO, which drew guidance from the principles relating to s 7(3) of the HRSO Act:45 Consistently with the approach taken under the HRSO Act, the scheme of the provisions pertaining to the making of an ECO requires the court to do no more than is necessary to achieve adequate protection of the community. This arises from the use of the words 'adequate protection' and 'necessary' in s 110(3) of the CLMI Act, and from the principles enunciated in s 7(2)(a) and s 7(2)(e). Further, while the paramount consideration of the CLMI Act is the protection of the community, that is not the sole consideration. The consideration of the protection of the community has to be assessed by reference to the particular provision that is engaged, and not in the abstract. In that respect, the language of s 110(3) directs attention to what is necessary to achieve adequate protection of the community and nothing more. The assessment of whether the threshold condition at s 110(3) is met requires the following two stage evaluation: 1. whether there is an unacceptable risk that the supervised person will do an act or make an omission that would constitute a serious offence, irrespective of whether the person has sufficient mental capacity to be criminally responsible for that act or omission; and 2. if so, whether it is necessary to make an ECO to ensure the adequate protection of the community against that unacceptable risk. The evaluation of whether the risk is unacceptable requires the court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the possible harm. That assessment directs attention to the possible 'serious offences' that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences. 45 WAW [67] - [72], [74] - [75] (references omitted). See also DAMD [25]; BWG [23(9)]; TKB [45]. -- 16 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 17 A person's mental impairment is part of their characteristics and thus informs the assessment of risk. Their mental impairment will also inform the assessment of whether it is necessary to make an ECO to ensure adequate protection of the community. It should not be assumed that if the court finds there is an 'unacceptable risk', it automatically follows that it is necessary to make an ECO to ensure adequate protection of the community. Consistent with the approach taken under the HRSO Act, the assessment of 'necessity' requires recognition that a person's entitlement to be at liberty should not be lightly denied. That approach takes account of, but does not give primacy to, the principles set at s 7(2)(a) and s 7(2)(e) of the CLMI Act. Moreover, the assessment of necessity must have regard to the other protective options available under the CLMI Act, in particular whether the making of a community supervision order provides adequate protection of the community. If it does, then it will not be necessary to make an ECO to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk. … The limiting term for an ECO needs to be set in accordance with the scheme of the provisions. It follows that the term should be no longer than is necessary to achieve adequate protection of the community. The phrase 'high degree of probability' used in s 110(3) is also used in the HRSO Act and was used in the DSO Act. The phrase has been said to connote a standard that is more than the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities' but less than the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'… That approach should be adopted in respect of the use of the phrase in the CLMI Act. 51 Further, the following additional matters identified by Lundberg J in PHB, also drawn from principles relating to s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, are relevant:46 (1) The question of whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence in the future, requires an evaluation of whether such a risk would eventuate in the absence of any measures that would provide adequate protection of the community against that risk. (2) The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past is relevant to the assessment of current and future risk, as is the respondent's historical and current response 46 PHB [56]. -- 17 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 18 to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable', but they are not exhaustive. (3) The court does not have to be satisfied that there is a high degree of probability that the offender will commit a serious offence. Rather, what must be proved to that standard is the necessity to make a custody order (or, in this case, an ECO) to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence that must be proved to the requisite standard. (4) The evaluation of the level of risk must accord with the objects of the CLMI Act, informed by the need to ensure adequate protection of the community as the paramount consideration. 52 As Gething J pointed out in DAMD,47 while s 7(3) of the HRSO Act sets out specific but non-exclusive matters to which the court must have regard in determining whether a person is a high risk serious offender, there are no matters specified in the CLMI Act to which the court must have regard to in determining whether to make an ECO pursuant to s 110(1). However, his Honour adopted the observations by Lundberg J in PHB,48 with which I agree, that: The absence of an express list of materials or factors emphasises that each application for an extended custody order must be approached on its particular facts, and assessed by reference to: (a) the statutory language employed within s 110, particularly the terms of s 110(3) itself; (b) the context as it emerges from pt 7 of the CLMI Act and the legislation as a whole; (c) together with the objects, principles, and the paramount consideration identified in s 7 and s 8 of the legislation. 53 As Gething J further noted,49 s 123(4) of the CLMI Act sets out matters on which the court may receive evidence, which provide an indication of the matters which may be relevant: Things that the court may receive in evidence for the purpose of determining the application include the following - 47 DAMD [29]. 48 PHB [57]. 49 DAMD [30]. -- 18 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 19 (a) any document relevant to the supervised person's antecedents or criminal record; (b) anything relevant contained in the official transcript of any relevant proceeding against the person; (c) any relevant material that was tendered to the court, or that informed the court, in a relevant proceeding against the person; (d) any report that a psychiatrist, psychologist or other appropriate expert prepares under this Part and the extent to which the person cooperated when the expert examined the person; (e) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the person; (f) information indicating whether or not the person has a propensity to engage in conduct that could constitute a serious offence in the future; (g) information indicating whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the person. 54 In addition, I agree with the observations in the previous decisions that, while s 47(1) of the CLMI Act is not directed to the making of an ECO under pt 7 of that Act, the factors set out in that section will likely be useful factors to have regard to in assessing the criteria of 'unacceptable risk' and 'necessity' prescribed by s 110(3).50 Section 47(1) sets out matters to which the court must have regard when making an order under pt 5, which includes a custody order made pursuant to s 46(1). Those matters are not exhaustive. In respect of an adult, those matters are: (a) the protection of the community; (b) the nature of the offence and the circumstances of its commission; (c) the person's character, antecedents, age and health; (d) the nature of the person's mental impairment; (e) the relationship between the mental impairment and the offending conduct; (f) the degree of risk that the person appears to present to themself or the safety of the community because of their mental impairment; 50 DAMD [32]; WAW [81]; PHB [61] - [62]. -- 19 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 20 (g) the extent to which adequate resources are available for the treatment, care and support of the person in the community … 55 If an ECO is made, the order will be reviewed periodically under pt 7 div 7 of the CLMI Act. It is important, in the context of this case, to set out the statutory scheme for review, as it goes to an issue raised at the hearing concerning the setting of a term for any ECO, and the impact that may have on the treatment of the respondent and preparing her for reintegration into the community. 56 Section 117 provides: (1) While a supervised person is subject to an extended custody order, the Minister may at any time apply to the Supreme Court for review of the order. (2) The Minister must apply for review of the order so as to ensure that reviews are carried out - (a) as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 1 year commencing on the day on which the order is made; and (b) as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 1 year commencing on the day on which the order was most recently reviewed under this Division. 57 By s 118, a supervised person who is subject to an ECO may apply for a review of the order with the leave of the court.51 Before the court gives leave, it must be satisfied there are exceptional circumstances.52 The application must be heard, and the review must be carried out, as soon as practicable, in accordance with any directions given by the court.53 In addition to any other directions, the court must order that the person be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist or other appropriate expert and that a report be prepared and submitted to the court.54 The report must set out the expert's assessment of the likelihood that the supervised person will commit a serious offence if not subject to the ECO, and the expert's assessment of the supervised person's rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements.55 51 CLMI Act s 118(1). 52 CLMI Act s 118(2). 53 CLMI Act s 119. 54 CLMI Act s 120(1). 55 CLMI Act s 120(3). -- 20 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 21 58 Section 121 deals with the way in which the court must deal with a review of an ECO, as follows: (1) If, on review of a supervised person's extended custody order, the court is satisfied that there remains an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious offence if not subject to the extended order, it must confirm the order. (2) However, if the court is not so satisfied, it must cancel the order. (3) If the court cancels an extended custody order in respect of a supervised person under subsection (2), it may, if satisfied as to the matter in section 114(2), make a community supervision order in respect of the person. (4) Part 5, to the extent relevant, applies to the making of a community supervision order under subsection (3) as if the order were being made under Part 5. 59 If an ECO is made for a term of more than 12 months, the Tribunal will be required, no later than six months before the expiry of the order, to consider the need for a further ECO in respect of the respondent, and report to the Minister, who may make an application for a further ECO if that is recommended by the Tribunal.56 As discussed above, such a recommendation would only be made if the Tribunal is satisfied at that time that an ECO is necessary to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.57 60 Although, for reasons that will emerge, it is not necessary to consider in detail the principles that have been elucidated in respect of whether a CSO should be made pursuant to s 110(4) of the CLMI Act, if the court is not satisfied that an ECO is necessary, it is nevertheless necessary to consider what would be required before the respondent could be released on a CSO, as the potential efficacy of a CSO to protect the community against any unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence, is a relevant consideration in determining whether an ECO should be made, as discussed above. It seems to me that, in the authorities to which I have referred, the principles elucidated in respect of the making of CSOs are primarily concerned with the matters about which the court must be satisfied before determining that a CSO is necessary, rather than the question of whether a CSO will provide adequate protection of the community. 56 CLMI Act ss 103 and 105, read with s 102 (references to a 'custody order' include an ECO). 57 CLMI Act s 103(4). -- 21 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 22 61 As I noted at [43] above, s 110(4) of the CLMI Act provides that, if the court 'is not satisfied as to the matter in s 110(3), but it is satisfied as to the matter in s 114(2),' it may make a CSO. Section 114(2) provides: Before making an extended community supervision order, the court must be satisfied that, to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the supervised person should remain under supervision due to the person's rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements. 62 As I noted at [44] above, while s 110(4) directs attention to the 'matter' in s 114(2), it empowers the court to make a CSO, rather than an extended CSO, which is the subject matter of s 114(2). CSO is defined in s 9 to mean 'an order of a kind referred to in section 52', and includes an order made under s 110(4). It follows that the provisions of pt 5 div 4 relating to CSOs apply to an order made under s 110(4). Section 52 states: A community supervision order is an order that a person, while residing in the community, must comply with the conditions of the order for the protection of the community 63 In brief, when making a CSO, a court must set a term of no more than five years and may impose any conditions the court considers to be necessary for the protection of the community,58 in addition to statutory conditions specified in s 54 of the CLMI Act. The statutory conditions include a condition that the supervised person be under the supervision of a supervising officer designated for the person, which includes complying with the lawful directions of the officer.59 In terms of other conditions that may be included, s 55(3) provides, in respect of adult supervised persons: (3) Without limiting subsection (1), the kinds of conditions that may be imposed include the following — (a) that the person undergo treatment, training or other measures that may alleviate, or prevent the deterioration of, the person's condition; (b) that the person reside at a specified place; (c) that the person notify the supervising officer of any change to the person's name or place of residence within a specified number of days after the change; 58 CLMI Act s 55(1). 59 CLMI Act s 54(1). -- 22 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 23 (d) that the person not leave the State except with, and in accordance with, the permission of the supervising officer; (e) that the person be subject to electronic monitoring under section 221 or a curfew under section 222 or both; (f) that the person comply with a specified requirement relating to the protection of a victim of an offence committed by the person[.] 64 By s 55(4), the imposition of a condition subjecting a person to electronic monitoring is subject to the court receiving a report from the CEO (Corrections) about the suitability of electronic monitoring in relation to the person. 65 In my opinion, if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence in the absence of any measures that would provide adequate protection of the community against that risk, then, when considering whether an ECO is necessary, and having regard to whether a CSO would provide adequate protection of the community, an evaluation is required of the adequacy of conditions that might be imposed on the order to provide such protection, together with an assessment of the supervised person's capacity to comply with the statutory conditions and any other conditions imposed. 66 In PHB, Lundberg J considered how the test in s 114(2) is to be construed. I respectfully adopt his Honour's analysis, and I consider that it also informs the question of whether a supervision order will provide adequate protection of the community, so as to remove the necessity for an ECO. His Honour said:60 The composite phrase, 'rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements', which is used in s 114(2), is used elsewhere in the legislation… The phrase is not defined, nor are the constituent words. The text should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, subject to context and purpose. Further, the absence of any prescriptive definitions of these terms emphasises that these concepts are likely to be fact sensitive. In the context of the CLMI Act, and without being exhaustive, the term 'rehabilitation' generally refers to the restoration of a person to their former health or to a life free of drugs and alcohol. A rehabilitation 60 [211] - [217] (references omitted). -- 23 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 24 requirement would include a recommended step or plan which is necessary or appropriate to return the person 'to a good, healthy, or normal life or condition after they have been in prison, been very ill, etc.'… The term 'retraining' refers generally to the process of training someone again, and captures a broad range of vocational training and programmes, although it is possible the term also extends beyond training solely for employment purposes. A retraining requirement would include a recommended step or plan to prepare a person for future vocational endeavours. The term 'resocialisation' refers generally to a process of educating someone for their resumption of normal social activities in the community and, again, it captures a broad range of matters directed to this purpose. A resocialisation requirement would include a recommended step or plan to educate a person 'to behave around others in a way that is considered suitable or normal, for example after difficult experiences that have affected their behaviour'… As to this last term, the ordinary meaning of the term is largely consistent with the language used in respect of the defined term 're- socialisation programme' in the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA)… Within that legislation, the defined term extends to the equipping of a prisoner for 're-entry into the general community', and addresses matters such as 'drug and alcohol use', 'mental and physical health', 'attitudes and social control', 'institutionalisation and life skills', 'housing', 'financial support and debt', and 'family and community networks'. The use of the term 'requirements' in the provision, and elsewhere in the legislation where the composite concept is used, would at least refer to specific and identified steps or plans which the person is required to undertake or which have been appropriately recommended. I accept that the term is not confined to such matters, and its reach may be broader. It should at least be possible, however, for the applicant to identify a causal link between the 'requirement' and the protection of the community through supervision by a representative of the Adult Community Corrections division. 67 Finally, it is apt to note that a supervised person who is subject to a custody order or an ECO may be released from custody for periods pursuant to leave of absence orders.61 A leave of absence order is an order that a supervised person be released from a place of custody: (a) for a period or periods specified by the Tribunal; and 61 CLMI Act pt 6 div 5. -- 24 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 25 (b) for a purpose or purposes specified by the Tribunal; and (c) on conditions specified by the Tribunal.62 68 Section 77(2) provides that, without limiting subsection (1)(b), the purposes that may be specified include - (a) receiving medical or dental treatment; (b) cultural or compassionate purposes; (c) reintegration into the community. 69 A leave of absence order may be subject to conditions imposed by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal may vary leave of absence orders.63 Evidence 70 Section 123(2) of the CLMI Act provides that, before the court determines an application under pt 7, it 'must, if the evidence is admissible, hear evidence given or called by the parties to the application'. Section 123(3) provides that, except as modified by subsection (4), the ordinary rules of evidence apply to evidence given or called under s 123(2). I referred to s 123(4) above. It may be seen that the subsection allows the court to receive documentary evidence, particularly in respect of the respondent's antecedents and materials tendered previously in any relevant proceeding against the respondent (which primarily means any proceeding relating to the offence with which the respondent was charged),64 which might not ordinarily be admissible. Of course, the weight to be given to any particular evidence is for the court to assess. There was no objection to the tender of exhibits 1 to 4, and no issue was taken on behalf of the respondent to the form of any of the evidence. 71 As I noted above, the evidence in this case consisted of materials in a Book of Materials in four volumes, received as exhibits 1 to 4, and the oral evidence of two witnesses. 72 The evidence includes: (1) materials related to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent (the index offence); 62 CLMI Act s 77(1). 63 CLMI Act s 78. 64 CLMI Act s 123(1)(a). -- 25 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 26 (2) transcripts from the District Court proceedings, including the limiting term decision of Flynn DCJ; (3) the published decision of Bowden DCJ; (4) psychiatric reports and medical records relating to assessments and treatment of the respondent since she has been in custody; (5) materials provided by the Tribunal, including various reports by the Tribunal to the applicant and the respondent, and records of outcomes in respect of leave of absence orders; (6) reports by ACC; (7) records relating to the respondent's placement history under the custody order; (8) materials provided by the State Forensic Mental Health Service (SFMHS); (9) the Guardianship and Administration Order made by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT); and (10) materials from the respondent's privately appointed guardian; (11) the report of Dr Petch, dated 4 November 2025; and (12) the Extended Order Assessment report, dated 3 December 2025. 73 Much of the material is historical and repetitive in its content. However, the Tribunal's report to the applicant recommending the making of an application for an ECO, and the report of Dr Petch, helpfully collate the historical material, and it will be sufficient to refer to those reports for relevant history. 74 There are a number of medical records in exhibit 4, in the form of progress notes, including from the time the respondent was in custody in a prison. I have not taken detailed account of those records, as the court does not have (and cannot be expected to have) the medical expertise to properly interpret them. I have received them on the basis that the medical professionals who have provided reports have reviewed them in formulating their opinions as to the respondent's condition and progress. Ultimately, the opinion in these proceedings that must be accorded the greatest weight on those issues, as he gave oral evidence, is that of Dr Petch. -- 26 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 27 75 As I have said, apart from the documentary exhibits, the court received oral testimony from Dr Petch and Ms Tayla Evans, a Senior Community Corrections Officer, who was the principal author of the Extended Order Assessment report and was able to inform the court of most recent developments. 76 Section 148(2) of the CLMI Act provides that, if an application for an extended order is made under pt 7 in relation to a supervised person, 'a victim of an offence committed by the supervised person may make a submission to the Supreme Court in relation to the need to ensure adequate protection of the victim'. Section 148(3) provides that any such submission must be in writing. Section 149(a) provides that, if the application under section 148 is in relation to a custody order (which includes an ECO), the victim's submission may 'state the victim's opinion of the effect on the victim of the release of the supervised person'. These provisions are consistent with the principle in s 7(2)(k) of the CLMI Act, that victims of offences committed by persons with mental impairment should have the opportunity to be acknowledged and heard. 77 The court received a submission from the respondent's mother, the victim of the alleged offence, by email sent to the Supreme Court registry on 15 January 2026. Although it was sent from an email address that appears to belong to the victim's husband, there is no reason to doubt that it is a submission made by the victim. The submission does not expressly state an opinion of the effect on the victim if the respondent were to be released, but it may be inferred from the content that the victim does not submit there would be any adverse impact. Ostensibly, it is a submission that is sympathetic to the respondent and expresses concern and sadness in relation to the level of restriction to which the respondent has been subject. I will say more about it later in these reasons. Relevant considerations 78 As I noted above, while the factors in s 47(1) of the CLMI Act are not specified as factors to be taken into account in determining the issues on an application for an ECO, the factors are relevant and useful considerations in determining both whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence and whether it is necessary to make an ECO to adequately protect the community against that risk. Similarly, the factors evident from the matters on which the court may receive evidence, as identified is s 123(4) are also relevant -- 27 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 28 considerations. There is overlap in the various factors or matters identified in those provisions. I do not consider it helpful in this case to deal with the evidence under headings reflecting each of the factors, although, as a matter of convenience, some of the headings will relate to some of the factors. Rather, I will approach my consideration of the evidence by commencing with the alleged offence and what that says about the risk to the community and the need for protection against that risk. I will then deal with evidence relating to the respondent's antecedents, in particular her history of mental illness and what has been observed about her condition since she has been in custody. This will include a review of the findings made by Bowden DCJ about those matters. I will then deal with matters that were outlined by the Tribunal to the applicant about measures taken to treat the respondent's mental illness and manage her reintegration into the community. Finally, I will deal with the expert evidence of Dr Petch and the Extended Order Assessment report. 79 The evidence is largely non-contentious. The nature of the offence and the circumstances of its commission 80 The facts of the alleged offence are not in issue. As I have already mentioned, the limiting term proceedings were conducted on the basis of an Amended Statement of Material Facts that was agreed between the parties. Those facts are, essentially, as follows. 81 The victim is the respondent's mother. She was 55 years of age at the time of the offence. The respondent was 28 years of age. They lived together at a house in Kalbarri. 82 On Friday 10 July 2020, at approximately 5.25 pm, the respondent was at home with her mother, who was in the kitchen placing items in the freezer. Without any warning or any obvious provocation, the respondent approached her mother from behind and stabbed her once in the back with a large kitchen knife. Her mother immediately collapsed on to the floor, but managed to get to her feet and run outside, shouting to her neighbours for help. She then collapsed in the street and was assisted by her neighbours, who had come out of their residences. The respondent remained nearby and, when asked by a neighbour what had happened, she said, 'I stabbed my mum' and 'I didn't mean to, I'm sorry.'65 65 Exhibit 1, pages 86 - 87. -- 28 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 29 83 As a result of the stabbing, the respondent's mother suffered a punctured right lung and fractured rib. Those, injuries were assessed by a medical practitioner to be of such a nature to endanger her life.66 84 The respondent was arrested at the scene and was charged on the same day. She declined to participate in an electronic record of interview. 85 It is not in issue that the respondent did the physical acts constituting the offence. Further, it is not in issue that she made the statements to neighbours at the scene, which demonstrated that the respondent knew what she had done, but that she denied doing so with any intent. I also accept that the respondent's final statement was an expression of remorse. 86 Nevertheless, the offence was clearly very serious and had the potential to cause the victim's death. 87 The respondent has no criminal history, and there is no evidence that would indicate the respondent has a propensity to commit a violent offence. What emerges from the evidence is that there was some history of friction between the respondent and her mother, and that the offence likely occurred in the context of a psychotic episode stemming from the respondent's mental illness in circumstances in which the respondent had not been compliant with treatment. As will appear from the views expressed by various psychiatrists who have treated the respondent, and from the opinion of Dr Petch, there is an unknown element to the danger posed by the respondent because she has not spoken about the offence or what led to it. Nevertheless, while there remains a risk that the respondent may lash out in a potentially fatal way in a psychotic episode, the need for protection of the community, in particular any person with whom she may be in a close relationship, is real and significant, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and circumstances in which it was committed. Matters from the proceedings before Bowden DCJ 88 I outlined above the circumstances in which the custody order came to be made by Bowden DCJ on 25 February 2022. 89 The question concerning the respondent's fitness to stand trial was raised by the court upon receipt of the pre-sentence report which contained a psychiatric report by Dr Kelly Palmer, a consultant 66 Exhibit 1, page 87. -- 29 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 30 psychiatrist, indicating that the respondent had been unfit due to symptoms of schizophrenia from the time of the offence until the time of the proceedings before Bowden DCJ, which obviously included the time at which she entered the guilty plea.67 90 The issue of whether the respondent was mentally unfit to stand trial was not in issue in the proceedings before Bowden DCJ. His Honour had reports from Dr Palmer dated 8 July 2021, 12 October 2021 and 22 February 2022, an addendum to her report dated 15 July 2021, and reports from one of the respondent's treating psychiatrists, Dr Kevin Smith, dated 19 July 2021 and 13 December 2021, which supported the conclusion reached by Dr Palmer that the respondent was unfit to stand trial.68 Dr Smith was the prison psychiatrist.69 No witnesses were called, and it appears that parties were content for the court to rely on the evidence in the prosecution brief and the psychiatric reports. 91 Bowden DCJ noted that, according to Dr Palmer, the respondent had a clinical diagnosis of chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia, an unspecified eating disorder and past polysubstance misuse.70 92 His Honour provided a brief summary of the respondent's psychiatric history as disclosed in the reports, as follows:71 Ms [TTR] has a long history of mental illness, namely treatment resistant, chronic schizophrenia and has had multiple relapses. It says her general level of function is poor, she demonstrates significant treatment resistant (sic) and suffers fluctuations in her mental state even within a highly controlled environment in prison and hospital and at the time of the offence was likely that Ms [TTR] was suffering symptoms of a relapse of schizophrenia in the context of non-compliance with oral antipsychotic medication and inadequate treatment response and occasions of delayed dosing of depot injection antipsychotic medication. Ms [TTR]'s chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia was first diagnosed with psychosis when she was 17 in 2010. Ms [TTR] has been admitted to Geraldton Hospital in 2016, 2017, 2018, to Graylands Hospital in 2017, 2018 and 2020 and to Abbotsford Hospital in 2018 as a result of her condition. 67 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [5]; Exhibit 1, page 68. 68 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [16], [21]; Exhibit 1, page 70. 69 Exhibit 4, page 470. 70 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [18]; Exhibit 1, page 70. 71 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [19] - [20]; Exhibit 1, page 70. -- 30 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 31 93 His Honour was satisfied that the respondent was suffering from ongoing symptoms of chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia. In concluding that the respondent was unlikely to become fit to stand trial within the next six months, his Honour went on to say:72 Both Dr Palmer and Dr Smith refer to Ms [TTR] as showing little or no improvement notwithstanding being on appropriate antipsychotic treatment. Dr Palmer's latest report is consistent with her earlier report of 8 July 2021 and 12 October 2021 and the addendum dated 15 July 2021 and Dr Smith's report of 13 December 2021. 94 In dealing with the question of whether to make a custody order, Bowden DCJ canvassed the respondent's history since she was arrested, as revealed in the psychiatric reports. I am satisfied, having examined the reports in exhibits 1 to 4, that his Honour's findings accurately reflect the history disclosed in those reports, and I adopt his Honour's outline as part of the background. That history is important in the present context because it provides a sort of baseline from which an assessment might be made of whether the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence has changed since the custody order was made. That is a relevant consideration, in my view, in determining whether there is an unacceptable risk, and whether an ECO is necessary. The following findings are relevant:73 Dr Smith's report reveals that Ms [TTR] was taken into custody on 11 July 2020 and immediately transferred to the Frankland Centre because of her acute psychotic mental state. She remained there until October 2020 and for approximately 27 days in November 2020. She was later transferred to Melaleuca Women's Prison where Dr Smith became her treating psychiatrist and was transferred to the Bindi Mental Health Unit at Bandyup Women's Prison on 19 August 2021. … Dr Smith says Ms [TTR]'s case is complex. In effect there have been no improvement in her level of functioning despite treatment. Dr Smith remains concerned about Ms [TTR]'s severe disturbance of meaningful verbal communication which he describes as limited and restricted to basic topics that concern her directly. Dr Smith says that the many bizarre residual features in Ms [TTR]'s behaviour are due to her incomplete response to Clozapine but without that medication her mental state deteriorates even further and when on one occasion Clozapine had to be ceased she became more preoccupied, hostile, agitated and withdrawn. 72 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [40]; Exhibit 1, page 73. 73 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [78], [80] - [81]; Exhibit 1, pages 78 - 79. -- 31 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 32 Dr Smith says Ms [TTR] spends her time at Bindi Bindi wandering or lying on a beanbag, is preoccupied, often looking troubled but also laughing at times in response to auditory hallucinations, she has lost weight and purges the food that she is given. 95 Bowden DCJ observed that the respondent had been on a community treatment order since 2016, and it had been noted that she had had poor compliance with medication.74 96 His Honour then referred to further observations that had been made of the respondent during her time in custody:75 From the time of the alleged offence Dr Palmer reports that Ms [TTR] has demonstrated ongoing symptoms of mental illness, impaired insight, communication and thought processes. She was moved to a cell with camera monitoring on 23 September 2021 due to her unsettled behaviour. She was deliberately vomiting, had poor oral intake, was spitting out medication and according to Dr Palmer was likely experiencing hallucinations. Camera monitoring revealed obsessive compulsive and ritualistic behaviour about her toilet habits. Dr Palmer notes that although Dr Smith was of the opinion that Ms [TTR] needed to be in hospital there were no beds available at the Frankland Centre. Dr Smith says that safety and risk of impulsive violence was an important consideration in Ms [TTR]'s unsettled mental state. The prison medical notes of October 2021 refer to Ms [TTR] responding to unseen stimuli, and said it was very difficult to assess her mental state as she was non-verbal, shrugs her shoulders or giggles when asked questions and remains isolated on the unit. 97 His Honour then referred to observations that had been made of the respondent's then current circumstances:76 [86] - [88] Ms [TTR] is currently prescribed Clozapine and required to have blood collected monthly to monitor her blood cell counts. She is on antidepressants and the depot antipsychotic medication Aripiprazole. Dr Palmer reports issues in her family relationship with her mother who was the victim of the alleged offence. Ms [TTR] has a history of running away from home, unstable accommodation and all of these Dr Palmer says have contributed to a relapse of her illness. Ms [TTR]'s current diagnosed is that she suffers from an eating disorder, polysubstance misuse (cannabis, MOMA and amphetamine) and chronic treatment resistance schizophrenia. 74 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [82]; Exhibit 1, page 79. 75 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [84] - [85]; Exhibit 1, page 79. 76 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [86] - [89]; Exhibit 1, page 80. -- 32 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 33 Her general level of functioning is poor. She demonstrates significant treatment resistance and there is a deterioration in her mental state even within a highly controlled environment of prison and hospital. 98 His Honour then referred to Dr Palmer's opinion about the respondent's mental health at the time of the alleged offence and the likely cause of her mental state:77 [90] Dr Palmer's opinion is that at the time of the offence it was likely that Ms [TTR] was suffering symptoms of a relapse of schizophrenia in the context of non-compliance with oral antipsychotic medication, inadequate treatment response and occasions of delay in taking her medication and there is no clear evidence that substance abuse was involved in precipitating her relapse. 99 His Honour then dealt with an issue that has persisted, as will appear when I deal with Dr Petch's evidence, namely the inability of the medical practitioners who have been treating the respondent to understand the cause of her behaviour in stabbing her mother, because of the respondent's failure or inability to explain what she was thinking. His Honour said, referring to Dr Palmer's reports:78 Dr Palmer's opinion is that Ms [TTR]'s risk of harm to others particularly her mother is unable to be clearly evaluated and thus remains significant given the potential lethality of her offence and her mental health prior to the offence and the fact that her mental health is currently not significantly different. 100 His Honour noted Dr Palmer's further observation that if the respondent were to be released into the community, she would be offered minimal protection by the Mental Health Act 2014, but as her risk of harm to others was unable to be clearly evaluated, it remained significant, given the potential lethal consequences of her offence.79 101 Bowden DCJ observed that Dr Smith had also identified problems with trying to manage the respondent's risk in the community:80 Dr Smith refers to Ms [TTR]'s ongoing lack of capacity to accept that she has a mental illness requiring treatment and this coupled with her communication deficits poses a serious management problem if she is in the community. Even depot injections brought about no further improvement. Those injections were ceased recently because of the lack of improvement and it was causing Ms [TTR] to lose weight and 77 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [90]; Exhibit 1, page 80. 78 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [92]; Exhibit 1, page 80. 79 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [94]; Exhibit 1, page 81. 80 State of Western Australia v [TTR] [2022] WADC 19 [110], [112]; Exhibit 1, pages 82 - 83. -- 33 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 34 her low muscle weight made it difficult to inject without causing her discomfort. … [Dr Smith] says that even if she was to find well supported accommodation in Perth or Geraldton there would need to be 24-hour surveillance and in his opinion Ms [TTR] needs to be in a secure hospital facility as she is very unwell, lacks capacity and poses a potential serious risk to herself or others. Dr Smith says Ms [TTR] has not shown any aggressive behaviour in custody and not tried to access a weapon, but she is watchful, guarded, unable to communicate and agitated at times. 102 Since being subject to the custody order made by Bowden DCJ, the respondent has been, and continues to be, detained at the Frankland Centre on the site of Graylands Hospital. The respondent's general background 103 In his report, Dr Petch set out aspects of the respondent's personal background he had garnered.81 Some of the things referred to by Dr Petch are said to be allegations or rumours, or are speculative by their nature. I have not had regard to those matters. I note also that, at the time Dr Petch prepared his report, the guardian who had been appointed for the respondent was her uncle. As will appear later in these reasons, on 5 November 2025, the day after the date of Dr Petch's report, the order appointing the respondent's uncle as her guardian was revoked and the Public Advocate was appointed as the respondent's limited guardian. The references in Dr Petch's report to discussions with the respondent's guardian (that is, her uncle) will need to be considered in that light. 104 The respondent is now 34 years of age. 105 Dr Petch noted that the respondent's relationship with her mother was reported at some stages to have been strained. I note that, at the time of discharge from an admission to Graylands Hospital in early June 2017, the respondent described her mother as 'psychotic' and said she had 'PMS' (pre-menstrual syndrome).82 106 Before the offence, the respondent's mother was on record as being critical of community mental health service interventions that had been provided to the respondent, and she had been against the use of 81 Exhibit 4, pages 460 - 462. I have not included citations footnoted by Dr Petch. 82 Exhibit 4, page 464. -- 34 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 35 antipsychotic medication to treat her. There has been no contact between the respondent and her mother since the index offence. 107 The respondent's father was acting as the administrator of her financial affairs, but an application had been made to replace him as administrator due to concerns about his handling of the respondent's finances. The Public Trustee was subsequently appointed as plenary administrator of the respondent's estate on 5 November 2025. 108 At the time Dr Petch assessed the respondent, her parents remained together and continued to live in Kalbarri. 109 The respondent has an older brother, who has a long-term partner and a small child, and a younger sister, who was present in the house at the time of the offence. The respondent had not had contact with her siblings since the index offence occurred. 110 The respondent has a maternal uncle who was previously her guardian. For a period, the respondent lived with him. Dr Petch noted that the treating team's relationship with him had at times been problematic, and communication between him and the team was, 'at times, very poor, untrusting and occasionally somewhat hostile'.83 The treating team requested the SAT to consider removing the respondent's uncle as her guardian. As I have said, while the respondent's uncle remained the guardian at the time of Dr Petch's report, he was removed as the guardian on 5 November 2025. The Public Advocate is now the respondent's limited guardian. 111 The respondent's paternal aunt had been involved in her care, in that she had taken the respondent into the community during periods of escorted leave of absence. As will appear below, there had been concerns that, at times, she had left the respondent unescorted. 112 Dr Petch noted that in several previous summaries there was a reported history of mental illness in the respondent's wider family. However, he noted that the family appear to be very private, and had divulged very little information about the respondent's childhood for the purposes of previous reports. Dr Petch referred to reporting of the existence of family secrets, but, in the absence of further evidence, such reporting appears to be speculative, and I do not give it any weight. 83 Exhibit 4, page 460. -- 35 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 36 113 Dr Petch noted that the respondent was most reluctant to discuss many aspects of her personal history. Her family described her early development as normal and denied that there had been any traumatic events or disruptions during her upbringing. However, she had a history of running away from home and there had been periods when her accommodation was unstable, which may have contributed to previous lapses in her schizophrenia. She had mostly lived with her parents. 114 She attended school until year 10. Her father described her as bright, creative, articulate and intelligent, and said she excelled at school until she started using cannabis and methylamphetamine when she was 15 years old. 115 After leaving school, the respondent worked in a café, which she managed. She subsequently had a number of jobs in hospitality, and she may have also worked in a gym. Otherwise, she has been unemployed. Dr Petch noted that her mental health had prevented her from obtaining further employment. She was on a jobseeker payment prior to the index offence. 116 The respondent was reported to have had one relationship with a male partner between the ages of 15 and 22, although in August 2023, she stated she had never been in a relationship. She has no children. 117 The respondent was reported to be closest to her aunt, to whom I have referred. It appears she lost all her friends after she became unwell. 118 The respondent has a history of using amphetamine, cannabis and another drug during her teenage years. Dr Petch noted there is no known history of alcohol misuse. 119 Dr Petch noted that no previous medical history had been noted prior to the index offence (other than in respect of the respondent's mental health). However, there had been some medical issues reported while the respondent has been in custody. She has received or been offered appropriate medical care, but it was noted that, in more recent times, the respondent had refused gynaecological screening and dental care. -- 36 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 37 Relevant evidence in respect of the respondent's mental health history 120 The evidence before me shows that the respondent first came to the attention of local mental health services when she was 16 years of age, shortly after she had left school. In his report, Dr Petch described these contacts with mental health services as 'brief crisis contacts' after the respondent had used a mixture of illicit substances including cannabis and amphetamines.84 121 The respondent first became psychotic at 17 years of age in 2010, however it appears that she was not diagnosed with schizophrenia until she was 25 years of age when she was under the care of Central West Mental Health Service in Geraldton.85 Bowden DCJ referred to the respondent's admissions to three different hospitals for treatment between 2016 and 2020. In its report to the applicant on 19 December 2024, the Tribunal recorded that, during that period, the respondent had been admitted to psychiatric facilities on 13 occasions following relapses of her illness.86 She was administered various antipsychotic medications orally and by depot injection. It was reported that her compliance with that treatment was 'mixed throughout' and poor in the lead up to the commission of the index offence.87 122 Dr Petch said that the respondent's symptoms, as reported in the records, included 'delusions of persecution (for example she stated was held captive at a man's house for several years and sustained physical and sexual abuse for several years with her parent's knowledge),88 and other paranoid delusional beliefs, homicidal ideation and agitation, auditory hallucinations and thought disorder'.89 I note that one of the entries referred to by Dr Petch, being for an admission to Geraldton Hospital between 29 June 2017 and 3 July 2017, noted that she had been brought to hospital by police, that she had intense homicidal ideation and agitation, and that she had been using cannabis and alcohol.90 Homicidal ideation was again reported in 2018.91 84 Exhibit 4, page 462. 85 Exhibit 4, page 462. 86 Exhibit 1, page 132 [54]. I note that in his report, Dr Petch says there were about 7 admissions: Exhibit 4, page 462. 87 Exhibit 1, page 132 [54]. 88 Dr Petch noted that, although this statement had always been regarded as delusional, he had not seen any evidence that the respondent's allegations, however improbable, were investigated. While there are references in Dr Petch's report to the family being very private, and perhaps secretive, it would be speculative to regard the allegation referred to here as anything other than a delusional belief, particularly in light of the respondent's known psychotic illness and her apparent good relationship with her father. 89 Exhibit 4, page 462. 90 Exhibit 4, page 464. -- 37 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 38 123 In 2018, during a time when the respondent was manifesting hallucinatory symptoms and disorganised thinking, she was reported to have engaged in conduct that may be described as stalking of a former male teacher, who she had previously subjected to what appears to have been stalking behaviour over a period of two years.92 124 I note that during periods of being mentally unwell in January and February 2020, some five to six months before the index offence, the respondent had demonstrated insight into her mental illness and a desire to receive treatment. On 29 January 2020, she was reported to have 'talked with her mother about treatment options as she wished to get better and heal her addictions and illnesses', and she had requested counselling and then admission to Perth Clinic.93 On 10 February 2020, on an occasion when she was admitted to Geraldton Hospital, the respondent had asked people to call an ambulance to take her to hospital and requested admission to the Perth Clinic.94 However, on that occasion she also displayed some of her most troubling psychotic behaviour, described as following in Dr Petch's report:95 She stole her father's car. She had what was called a crazed look in her eyes and it was thought she might drive at someone (redacted). She was reported to have been trying to target other cars in the road. A search was launched to try to locate her, involving the family and police. They went both ways out of town and found the car which had been driven off the road. She was found naked running through bushland, with multiple scratches to her lower legs. (She had previously removed her clothes when psychotic). She was taken to Geraldton Hospital by police. Her previous multiple episodes of acute relapse of her mental state were noted. She said that she believed she was being chased, and that she had schizophrenia because of a hole in her stomach that had been scientifically proven. She was noted to have homicidal ideation secondary to the schizophrenia. She was transferred to Graylands Hospital. 125 Although I have set out Bowden DCJ's summary of relevant aspects of the evidence of Dr Smith, it is helpful to elaborate further on the reports of Dr Smith, who was one of the respondent's treating doctors, to provide a fuller context for the opinions he expressed, upon which his Honour relied. 91 Exhibit 4, pages 465 - 466. 92 Exhibit 4, page 465. 93 Exhibit 4, page 466. 94 Exhibit 4, page 466. 95 Exhibit 4, pages 466 - 467. -- 38 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 39 126 In his report of 19 July 2021,96 Dr Smith said that the respondent has a well-documented history of a chronic psychotic mental illness, namely schizophrenia, which has been characterised by impulsive behaviours and by the treatment resistant nature of her condition when using standard medications. Dr Smith reported that he had seen the respondent on regular occasions, but rapport with her had been minimal due to her communication difficulties, as a result of which the respondent had never been able to discuss her offending behaviour or its motivation with anyone. Further, it appeared at times that she would be responding to auditory hallucinations.97 127 In his report of 13 December 202198, which was addressed to Dr Palmer, Dr Smith described the primary concern he held for the respondent regarding her inability to communicate effectively verbally. Dr Smith stated:99 The concerns we have about [the respondent] include first and foremost she continues to have a severe disturbance of meaningful verbal communication. Once again, this cannot be understood psychologically and has to be explained in terms of her psychotic disorder. The behaviour can be seen as a psychotic negativism whereby normal reciprocity is replaced by 'negative suggestibility' i.e. a lack of responsiveness to normal cues in communication. It is typical of this phenomenon that, although she is most often mute, in some circumstances [the respondent] can interact verbally, as in her communication with her family. Her communication is always limited however and it has been regularly observed that it is restricted to basic topics that concern her directly. 128 Dr Smith further reported:100 [The respondent's] responses to attempts at verbal communication consist of ambivalent shrugs and movements that are indeterminate between nodding her head 'yes' and shaking it 'no'. When she makes eye contact she often giggles and smiles to herself for no obvious reason. She is also frequently seen laughing silently in a manner that suggests she is responding to auditory hallucinations. The many bizarre residual features in her behaviour are due to her incomplete response to Clozapine, but without this medication her mental state deteriorates even further. While she was still at [Melaleuca Women's Prison] Clozapine had to be ceased on one occasion and she became much more preoccupied, hostile, agitated, and withdrawn. 96 Exhibit 1, pages 35 - 37 97 Exhibit 1, page 35. 98 Exhibit 1, pages 49 - 53. 99 Exhibit 1, page 51 100 Exhibit 1, page 51. -- 39 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 40 The Tribunal's report to the applicant 129 The Tribunal's report of 19 December 2024 to the applicant provides further helpful detail of the views that have been expressed by the various medical practitioners who have been involved in treating the respondent since she has been at the Frankland Centre. The Tribunal noted that, on 4 March 2022, the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board (the Board) determined that the respondent's place of custody be an authorised hospital, namely the Frankland Centre, pursuant to s 25 of the Repealed Act, and that the respondent remained there.101 130 The Tribunal noted that it considered the respondent's case for the first time under the provisions of the CLMI Act on 26 September 2024. The Tribunal decided to designate a supervising officer for the respondent, being a Senior Community Corrections Officer (CCO) with the Corrective Services division of the Department of Justice, pursuant to s 99 of the CLMI Act.102 131 The following extract from the executive summary of the Tribunal's report provides a helpful overview of developments in the respondent's case until that point in time:103 Ms [TTR] has an established diagnosis of chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia. Contemporary psychiatric opinion indicates that Ms [TTR] has shown a gradual but progressive and sustained improvement in her mental state since her admission to the Frankland Centre. Ms [TTR] demonstrates limited insight into her mental illness and the need for treatment, however she maintains compliance with her medication regimen. Previous and current treating psychiatrists have noted the difficulty in comprehensively assessing Ms [TTR]'s risk, as she continues to be unwilling or unable to speak about the alleged offence and denies awareness of her previous psychotic symptoms. Recent risk assessments have identified the presence of a number of historical and clinical risk factors for violence. On 26 July 2022 the Governor in Executive Council made an order allowing the Board to grant leaves of absence for Ms [TTR]. Since that time, the Board gradually increased Ms [TTR]'s access to leave away from the Frankland Centre, based on the recommendations of her treating team. On 26 September 2024, the Tribunal determined to make a Leave of Absence Order (LOA Order) for Ms [TTR], pursuant to 101 Exhibit 1, page 125 [2]. 102 Exhibit 1, page 125 [4]. 103 Exhibit 1, pages 125 - 126 [7] - [10]. -- 40 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 41 section 73(1)(b) of the Act. To date, Ms [TTR] has utilised her access to the grounds of Graylands Hospital and the community without incident. The Tribunal considers that the Frankland Centre continues to be the most appropriate placement for Ms [TTR] at the present time, to ensure that she receives the necessary treatment and care for her major mental illness. Planning for Ms [TTR]'s transition to the community will be undertaken at a future time in accordance with her treatment progress and identified rehabilitative needs. 132 In considering the degree of risk posed by the respondent to the community, the Tribunal set out observations that had been made by various consultant psychiatrists who had assessed the respondent. It stated that:104 Dr Palmer reported that, when unwell, Ms [TTR] experiences persecutory delusions and perceptual disturbances. Further, Ms [TTR]'s poor personal boundaries, vulnerability and disinhibited behaviours place her at risk of exploitation and adverse outcomes. Dr Palmer advised that Ms [TTR]'s risk of harm to others (in particular her mother) was unable to be clearly evaluated, as Ms [TTR] had been unable to discuss any aspects of her alleged offending, and thus remained significant given the potential lethality of her alleged offence, and that her mental health prior to the alleged offence and at the time that she was assessed by Dr Palmer, was not significantly different. 133 The tribunal then referred to a report dated 5 April 2022 prepared by Dr Walker, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, which was the first psychiatric report prepared at the Board's request in respect of the respondent. It said that, although he had not been able to complete a formal forensic risk assessment, Dr Walker noted that the respondent's main risk indicators included irritability and aggression, reducing her communication with staff, illicit substance use, and non-compliance with medication.105 134 Another consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr Hanratty, had provided a report dated 29 September 2022. With regards to clinical factors for violence, his assessment 'highlighted problems with the respondent's insight, symptoms of major mental disorder, treatment 104 Exhibit 1, page 127 [22] - [23]. 105 Exhibit 1, page 127 [25] - [26]. -- 41 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 42 [and] supervision response'.106 Overall, at that time, Dr Hanratty concluded that the respondent's mental state was slowly improving.107 135 However, in a report dated 22 March 2023, Dr Hanratty was of the view that the respondent was showing minimal, gradual improvements at that stage.108 The respondent was described as being cooperative with nursing and medical direction, as well as remaining compliant with her then current treatment.109 However, she refused medical interventions, such as vital signs or echocardiograms. Dr Hanratty explained that the respondent generally responded to questions by nodding or shaking her head or shrugging her shoulders, and only occasionally used short verbal phrases with nursing staff, her family, and the treating team.110 She continued to appear to respond to unseen stimuli.111 Dr Hanratty also noted that the respondent 'passively accepted her medication, however, appeared ambivalent regarding whether it was helpful'.112 There was concern about her purging medication, which had prompted a plan to be implemented by the treating team to ensure the respondent remained under observation in common areas after taking medication.113 However, to the extent that there had been some improvement in the respondent's verbal responses during reviews, it was thought that had been the result of her current medication regimen.114 It was noted that the respondent 'appeared to have limited understanding about how discussing her mental state and inner experiences may help risk assessment and management and ultimately her progression to a less secure environment'.115 136 In a report dated 29 August 2023, another consultant psychiatrist, Dr Griffiths, noted that the respondent had not discussed any symptoms she was experiencing at the time of the offence, which made risk assessment challenging.116 137 Another consultant psychiatrist, Dr Parmar, had noted in a report dated 7 February 2024 that, although the respondent had previously told mental health staff that she had had homicidal ideation in 2017, during 106 Exhibit 1, page 128 [27]. 107 Exhibit 1, page 128 [27]. 108 Exhibit 1, page 128 [28]. 109 Exhibit 1, page 133 [66]. 110 Exhibit 1, page 133 [66]. 111 Exhibit 1, page 133 [66]. 112 Exhibit 1, page 133 [67]. 113 Exhibit 1, page 133 [68]. 114 Exhibit 1, page 133 [69]. 115 Exhibit 1, page 133 [67]. 116 Exhibit 1, page 128 [29]. -- 42 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 43 her current admission, she denied and homicidal or suicidal ideation, and it was noted she had not assaulted or been aggressive towards any staff or patients.117 Dr Parmar considered that the main risk indicators for the respondent to include irritability and aggression, reducing her communication with staff, illicit substance use and non-compliance with medication.118 The Tribunal reported:119 Dr Parmar informed that Ms [TTR] continued to be unwilling or unable to speak about the alleged offence and denied awareness of her previous psychotic symptoms, which makes it difficult to comprehensively assess Ms [TTR]'s risk. Ms [TTR] denies any current perceptual disturbance despite the treating team and other members of staff observing her to respond to unseen stimuli and laughing incongruently. Dr Parmar noted that this presentation is consistent with previous admissions and Ms [TTR]'s reported presentation around the time of the index offence. Dr Parmar informed that at the present time, the treating team do not have an understanding of what specifically drove Ms [TTR] to commit the alleged offence. However, it is evident that she was acutely psychotic at the time, and it is probable that this played a role in influencing her actions 138 The Tribunal then referred to a report dated 22 November 2024 prepared by a psychiatric registrar, Dr Strick, who reported that 'when unwell, [the respondent] has displayed dangerous and disinhibited behaviours, uncontrolled anger and paranoia'.120 The Tribunal noted:121 Ms [TTR] has a long history of not adhering to treatment and being lost to follow up in the community. Further, she has a history of conflictual relationships with her family and rebels or lashes out at people she perceives to be attempting to control her. Despite it being several years since the alleged offence, Ms [TTR] has reportedly refused to discuss her internal experiences and the circumstances of the offence. Therefore, Dr Strick informed that it remains unclear how central Ms [TTR]'s psychotic symptoms were in the causal chain leading to her offence. It also remains unclear whether she is committed to receiving ongoing psychiatric treatment to ensure stability and whether she is committed to preventing a recurrence of her index offence or other harmful behaviour. In considering Ms [TTR]'s future risk, Dr Strick noted that 'without understanding Ms [TTR]'s internal experiences, in the lead up to the offence, her current internal experiences and perceptions, or her thoughts about the future in relation to psychiatric treatment, violence, 117 Exhibit 1, page 128 [30]. 118 Exhibit 1, page 128 [32]. 119 Exhibit 1, page 128 [33]. 120 Exhibit 1, page 128 [34]. 121 Exhibit 1, pages 128 -129 [34] - [36]. -- 43 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 44 and her relationships with her family, it is impossible to conclude anything other than she is a moderate to high risk of future violence.' Factors assessed by Dr Strick as likely to increase Ms [TTR]'s ongoing risk included non-adherence to psychiatric treatment, poor engagement with supervision, frustration when she is not able to have what she wants and a sense that family members are controlling her. It was Dr Strick's opinion that, in a state of acute psychosis, people whom Ms [TTR] perceives to have control over her would appear to be most at risk. In a state of acute psychosis, people who Ms [TTR] perceives to have control over her would appear to be most at risk, and Dr Strick noted that her father is currently her financial administrator, and her uncle is her appointed guardian. However, Dr Strick noted that there is no known evidence of attitudes supportive of violence outside of the illness context. Dr Strick concluded that it is important that Ms [TTR] and the multidisciplinary team establish sufficient trust and rapport to explore her index offence and collaborate on risk-management and treatment plans. (italics in original) 139 In considering whether the respondent would be able to comply with conditions of a leave of absence order or be able to care for her day-to-day needs, the Tribunal noted the following matters:122 (1) On 26 July 2022 the Governor in Executive Council approved the recommendation of the Board allowing the Board to make leave of absence orders for the respondent. The Board issued its first leave of absence order on 5 August 2022 and subsequently only gradually increased the respondent's access to leave away from the Frankland Centre, based on the recommendations of her treating team. Up to the time of the Tribunal's report, the respondent had utilised her access to the grounds of Graylands Hospital and the community without incident. (2) The respondent has a positive and supportive relationship with her father, her uncle and her aunt, her closest relationship being with her aunt. In the psychiatric report dated 7 February 2024, Dr Parmar noted that the respondent had been successfully utilising her unescorted access to the grounds of the Graylands Hospital in accordance with the terms of her leave of absence order without incident. Dr Parmar also noted that the respondent continued to successfully access time in the 122 Exhibit 1, pages 129 - 131. -- 44 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 45 community with family members on a regular basis without any concerns being raised. The respondent had especially enjoyed time at the beach with her family. Dr Parmar noted that the respondent's family members were reportedly very appreciative of the quality time they were now able to have with the respondent, and the community access appeared to have contributed positively to the respondent's quality of life, rehabilitation and social reintegration. (3) Dr Parmar also reported that, whilst on the hospital ward, the respondent mostly kept to herself, although she enjoyed gardening, attended the gym on a daily basis and participated in cooking and art sessions. (4) In the report dated 22 November 2024, Dr Strick noted that the respondent had been engaging in her occupational recovery programme and had clear ideas of what she would like to achieve in the programme. However, she had displayed limited engagement in sessions that required discussion or reflection on the index offence and criminogenic needs. Dr Strick was of the opinion that the respondent would benefit from ongoing occupational therapy to establish more future focused activity and further integration into the community. (5) On 26 September 2024, the Tribunal issued a leave of absence order with a number of conditions (set out in the report) that included escorted leave of absence in the community for up to 20 hours per week, subject to the approval of the treating psychiatrist. (6) While Dr Parmar had reported that the respondent's access to the community had been without incident, the respondent's supervising officer informed the Tribunal on 14 November 2024 that the respondent may have been in breach of the leave of absence order, by virtue of being left unattended in the community by her aunt for periods on a number of occasions, for example when the respondent's aunt had use the bathroom. This had been disclosed by the respondent's aunt. In addition, an off-duty staff member from the Frankland Centre had reported seeing the respondent alone in a shopping centre when she was supposed to be on escorted community access. SFMHS had placed the escorted community access with family members 'on hold' due to concerns held by the clinical team, including a -- 45 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 46 concern that family members may not appreciate the risk factors. However, while the escorted community access was placed on hold, the respondent continued to make use of escorted access to the grounds of Graylands Hospital to engage with her family. In dealing with Dr Petch's evidence, I will refer to the discussions that the treating team has had with the respondent's family about the issue of risk, as it relates to escorted leave of absence in the community. (7) In an Extended Order Report, dated 28 November 2024, the respondent's supervising officer had reported that the respondent had engaged well with ACC, although she had expressed some confusion about the legal process during discussions, and was reassured that she would be supported throughout the transition. The respondent had identified her future goals as including transitioning into the community and starting a landscaping business. The supervising officer had noted that ongoing interagency meetings would be required to develop release plans, a support network and risk management strategies for the respondent. 140 In respect of the principle of imposing the least possible restriction on the freedom of the supervised person, the Tribunal noted that, should the respondent remain subject to a custody order, the Tribunal will continue to monitor her progress and will consider incremental increases to her grants of leave of absence, subject to ongoing risk assessments and the recommendations of her treating team.123 The tribunal further noted that the respondent was in the relatively early stages of her recovery at the Frankland Centre, and, therefore, comprehensive planning for her transition to the community had not yet been commenced by her treating team. Such planning would be undertaken at a future time in accordance with Ms [TTR]'s treatment progress and identified rehabilitative needs.124 141 In summary, the Tribunal said:125 Ms [TTR] has now received continuity of care and treatment for her mental illness at the Frankland Centre since early 2022, with her treating psychiatrist reporting a gradual but progressive improvement in her mental state since her admission. Whilst Ms [TTR] is compliant with her medication regimen, she is noted to passively accept her 123 Exhibit 1, page 134 [75]. 124 Exhibit 1, page 134 [76]. 125 Exhibit 1, pages 135 - 136 [86] - [87]. -- 46 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 47 prescribed medication and to demonstrate limited insight into the nature of her mental illness and the need for treatment. Further, despite improvements to her mental state, Ms [TTR] has been observed by the treating team and other members of staff to respond to unseen stimuli and to laugh incongruently. This presentation is consistent with previous psychiatric admissions and her reported presentation around the time of the alleged offence. Of significance, Ms [TTR] continues to be unwilling or unable to speak about the alleged offence and denies awareness of her previous psychotic symptoms. At the present time, the treating team do not have an understanding of what motivated Ms [TTR] to attack the victim. However, it is evident she was acutely psychotic at the time and Dr Parmar considers it to be probable that this played a role in influencing her actions. Dr Strick noted that Ms [TTR] is alleged to have committed the offence without any apparent provocation or warning and it is unclear as to what events, thoughts, feelings or urges may have precipitated the attack, delusional or otherwise. Dr Strick considered that it remains unclear how central Ms [TTR]'s psychotic symptoms were in the causal chain leading to the alleged offence. Multiple psychiatric reports, prepared by previous and current treating psychiatrists, have informed that these factors make it difficult to comprehensively assess Ms [TTR]'s risk of violence. It is noted by the clinicians that Ms [TTR]'s alleged offending was impulsive and involved potentially lethal force with the use of a weapon. Evidence of Dr Edward Petch Introduction 142 Dr Petch's report stood substantially as his evidence-in-chief. 143 Dr Petch interviewed the respondent on 19 September 2025. He also reviewed all of the materials in the Book of Materials, including all of the medical records. His report, which is 73 pages long, is comprehensive, covering the reports of other psychiatrists in relation to the respondent in some detail, in chronological order, and reviewing other reports, including the Tribunal's report, and the procedural history, before coming to his own assessment of the respondent. The section concerning his diagnosis of the respondent provides detailed explanations of the conditions he has diagnosed. His conclusions, in particular his opinion as to the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence is supported by detailed reasons. It is not necessary to deal with all aspects of the report for present purposes, although I will refer to some of the details. -- 47 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 48 Dr Petch's summary of conclusions 144 The essence of Dr Petch's evidence is summed up in a very helpful and clear Summary of Conclusions at the start of his report, as follows:126 Based upon my interview of Ms [TTR] on 19 September 2025 and my perusal of the evidence supplied by the state, and with the reasons as specified in the report below, I have concluded that without an extended custody order, it is probable that Ms [TTR] will commit a further serious offence as defined by the Act, and I think that an extended custody order is necessary at this time. I have also concluded that Ms [TTR]'s risk to the community is being adequately contained by the current custody order. If the court determines that she does not meet the criteria for an extended custody order, I think that as an alternative she would require ongoing supervision on an extended community supervision order, due to her rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements, but I think this would pose very serious challenges. There are risks that without an extended custody order, she would need to be released from the Frankland Centre where she is currently held, before she has sufficiently recovered from the current episode of psychosis which has arisen in the context of chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia. I do not think she is yet ready to be discharged into conditions of lower security or into the community. If the court determines that an extended custody order is not to be imposed, and the court imposes an extended community supervision order instead, the level of supervision required will be very significant and I do not have any confidence that she would be able to abide by the conditions that are likely to be imposed. The services required in this eventuality have not yet been established and the court may therefore need to adjourn to allow them to be put in place before the extended community supervision order takes effect. If the court considers that an unconditional release order is appropriate, in my view the risks to the community as well as to Ms [TTR] (because of her vulnerability) would be grave. This is because Ms [TTR] has not made good progress since about the beginning of 2024. This is evidenced by her current symptoms which, despite treatment, remain severe and which continue to interfere with her functioning on many levels. These symptoms, many which were almost certainly present at the time of the offence, were almost certainly some of the main factors underlying it. As long as the symptoms remain, and they remain not well understood, the spectre of further similar unexpected serious violence also remains. The lack of progress is from a number of factors, and no doubt the teams that have been managing her case at the Frankland Centre would 126 Exhibit 4, pages 456 - 457. References to 'the Act' are to the CLMI Act. -- 48 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 49 say that it reflects the sheer difficulty and complexities surrounding her case which has made looking after her extremely challenging. Aspects of these difficulties pervade the records: the severity of her illness; the treatment resistant nature of her psychosis; her extremely poor communication with successive teams from the beginning of 2024; a mutually hostile relationship between the team and her family; and a profound lack of mutual trust that has developed. She is on her fifth clinical team since February 2022, so there has been little continuity of care. Some features of her disorder have made open communication about her mental state very difficult for her, and this too is not fully understood, so she has not yet divulged the context for the offence. Therefore, understanding of her by the treating team remains minimal. Risk assessment is frustratingly only at its very early stages. Exceedingly poor almost toxic therapeutic relationships have developed between her and her sequential clinical teams, and this has been a serious barrier to progress. Her inability to engage in any therapeutic work relating to her illness or her offence effectively means her rehabilitation has not yet begun. Each step that she has made towards the community has been problematic, and has resulted in a substantial backward step and significant erosion of the therapeutic relationships and trust between the clinical team and Ms [TTR] and her family. I think this has very significantly detracted from a focus upon her progress, which seems to have largely halted of late. I am seriously concerned about her. I understand that yet another clinical team has been appointed to manage her case. I fear no or very little progress will be made until a new trusting therapeutic relationship is rebuilt: I think this will take some time. Development's in the respondent's mental health 145 Dr Petch traced developments in the respondent's mental health and the treatment she received from the time of her arrest by reference to various records. 146 After her arrest on 10 July 2020, the respondent remained in hospital overnight before being transferred to Greenough Regional Prison on 11 July 2020. She was then transferred on 16 July 2020 to Bandyup Women's Prison in the metropolitan area, but was admitted the same day to the Frankland Centre as a result of a Hospital Order made by the Geraldton Magistrates Court.127 The respondent remained at the Frankland Centre until 6 October 2020, when she was returned to prison because her bed at the Frankland Centre was required. At the 127 Exhibit 4, page 469. -- 49 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 50 Frankland Centre, she was medicated with clozapine, and it appeared that she had become marginally more interactive with treatment and less anxious. 147 She remained at the prison until 3 November 2020, when she was again admitted to the Frankland Centre because she refused a second blood test after a weekly blood test to monitor her clozapine level showed a reduction in her white blood cells.128 Dr Petch said:129 It was reported that the respondent had deteriorated during the period she had spent in prison. She was significantly more perplexed and distracted by inferred unseen stimuli than at any point in the previous admission. The reason for this was not clear. She was described as being guarded, intense and passive/aggressive. When asked about her experiences or for her views on various topics, she would respond that she did not know or did not care. It appeared she had been noncompliant with the clozapine whilst she had been in prison, as her clozapine blood level was subtherapeutic. She was also identified as a potential rapid metaboliser of clozapine. 148 The respondent expressed a wish to return to prison to smoke. Although there were concerns about future mental health deterioration, she was returned to prison on 30 November 2020 and remained in custody at the prison until after the decision of Bowden DCJ, when the Board determined that the place of custody pursuant to the custody order should be the Frankland Centre, where she was admitted again on 4 March 2022. 149 I have previously referred to the psychiatric assessments during 2021 that were relied upon by Bowden DCJ and by the Tribunal in its report to the applicant. It is not necessary to refer to Dr Petch's elaboration upon those assessments. However, the following descriptions of the respondent's continuing progress in prison are noteworthy: (1) It was reported that, on 23 September 2021, the respondent was moved to a camera cell due to her unsettled behaviour. She was deliberately vomiting, and it was likely she had been experiencing hallucinations. She was spitting out medication. The cameras revealed obsessive compulsive and ritualistic behaviours.130 Dr Petch said:131 128 Exhibit 4, page 469. 129 Exhibit 4, page 470. 130 Exhibit 4, page 471. -- 50 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 51 Her clozapine dropped to a sub-therapeutic level from her purging. She needed another admission to hospital but there [was] no bed available at the Frankland Centre. Dr Smith noted that the risk of impulsive violence was an important consideration in her unsettled mental state. She was moved after a few days back to the Bindi Bindi unit at Bandyup Prison (for mentally ill people) on 28 September 2021. (2) Between late December 2021 and January 2022, the respondent did not particulate in groups. She was mildly irritable at times. She did not engage in interviews, but responded to interactions with polite smiles, and she voiced pleasantries. Her affect brightened in late January 2022, but there was no substantial improvement overall. Her blood level of clozapine was very low: she might have been purging. Her medication was changed from tablets to liquid, and she was observed for 30 minutes each time after taking it. Varying doses of clozapine appeared to make little difference to her presentation.132 150 Further, Dr Petch referred to a report to the Tribunal on 19 December 2024 from Dr Strick and Dr Parmar that related to whether the respondent's family members were appropriate escorts to take the respondent into the community on leave of absence orders (referred to as LOA orders), given that the respondent had been left unattended in the community, and had also been seen in a moving vehicle whilst on unescorted grounds leave.133 What is instructive is the attitude of family members to the respondent's risk. While this arose in the context of leave of absence orders, it is relevant to the question of whether the respondent has non-institutional support within the community that could contribute to the mitigation of risk. Dr Petch wrote:134 Dr Strick requested an urgent review of the LOA order as the team were concerned about the suitability of her family acting as her escorts. The team asked the MIRT to remove her family as appropriate escorts for her leave. The report outlined potential breaches with the current LOA Order leading to this request: … Different family members have told the team they do not think she poses a risk. Family meetings to correct this perception have not been successful, as the family say to team that these issues have not been communicated to them despite multiple occasions when it has been 131 Exhibit 4, page 471. 132 Exhibit 4, page 474. 133 Exhibit 4, page 486. 134 Exhibit 4, page 486 - 487. -- 51 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 52 discussed. Family members state they have not been informed of the rules regarding leave, although these have been clearly communicated. … The team concluded that the family lacked an appreciation of the risks posed by Ms [TTR]. They wrote that they found the family to be obstructive and uncooperative. They in turn had made accusations of the team (calling them barbaric and dictators) and subjecting them to irate calls. Minimal collateral history was provided to the team by the family. 151 Dr Petch noted that, in a Record of Outcome dated 20 December 2024, the Tribunal noted the breaches of the leave of absence order that had been reported by Dr Parmar, and concerns that had been raised by the supervising officer,135 which included that the respondent's uncle and her father 'produced conflicting information to what was provided by the treating team'.136 The supervising officer also reported that the respondent had reiterated her mistrust of the treating team, and had expressed her desire to become mentally well.137 The Tribunal was of the view that the authorisation in current leave of absence order was sufficient to enable the treating team to restrict the respondent's leave of absence.138 The Tribunal encouraged the clinical team to communicate to family members the obligations of escorted leave. The Tribunal confirmed the existing conditions of the leave of absence order. 152 Dr Katinka Morton took over the care of the respondent in February 2025. Dr Petch noted that, in a report dated 24 February 2025, Dr Morton concluded that the respondent's presentation was remarkable because, five years after the index offence, 'remarkably little is known about the offence or her mental state, and her engagement with mental health services remains poor'.139 Dr Morton expressed concern about the respondent's mental state and was of the view that the respondent's psychotic symptoms remained 'refractory to treatment', perhaps due to lack of engagement with treatment, including lack of compliance with medication.140 153 As at 7 March 2025, the respondent appeared to be engaging well with her supervising officer and the family 'felt more heard'.141 The 135 Exhibit 4, page 487. 136 Exhibit 1, page 141; Exhibit 4, page 487. 137 Exhibit 1, page 141. 138 Exhibit 1, page 141; Exhibit 4, page 487. 139 Exhibit 4, page 487. 140 Exhibit 4, page 487. 141 Exhibit 4, page 487. -- 52 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 53 respondent had disengaged with psychological therapy, saying she was trying, but found it very hard.142 She was maintaining contact with family members, who seemed pleased with the new treating team.143 They thought the community leave of absence had been suspended as a form of punishment.144 It was reported that the respondent 'was future focused and wanting to progress, but her reluctance to engage in therapeutic interventions and risk assessments remained a significant barrier to progression.'145 Further, while the respondent's family appeared to be better disposed towards the new treating team, trust barriers remained.146 The supervising officer noted that it was not clear whether the respondent had a thorough understanding of the need for medication and supervision.147 154 The respondent had been seen by a psychologist, Dr Rob Bonett, who provided a report dated 17 March 2025. As Dr Petch noted, the respondent was seen 'in order to build rapport, attempt a mental state assessment, identify risk related treatment needs and develop a collaborative plan'.148 However, Dr Bonett reported that there were pronounced communication difficulties, and the respondent often sat silently for prolonged periods or responded to questions by gesture. She refused to engage regarding her mental state or risk issues. She sometimes appeared to be about to answer, then declined. She adopted a passive and indirect aggressive communication style, sometimes remaining silent in sessions, but phoning her advocate or family afterwards to complain about something. Her mood was generally stable. She seemed 'incongruently unperturbed about her detention, despite her stated wish to live in the community'.149 Her affect was shallow and restricted. Occasionally it was 'dark stormy and angry if restrictions had been placed upon her movements'.150 155 Dr Bonett had noted that the respondent refused to answer questions, so he could not assess her mental state. However, while staff had noted that the respondent continued to respond to unseen stimuli, this was not evident during Dr Bonett's appointments with her. Nor 142 Exhibit 4, page 487. 143 Exhibit 4, pages 487 - 488. 144 Exhibit 4, page 488. 145 Exhibit 4, page 488. 146 Exhibit 4, page 488. 147 Exhibit 4, page 488. 148 Exhibit 4, page 488. 149 Exhibit 4, page 488. 150 Exhibit 4, page 488. -- 53 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 54 was there any evidence of delusions. As Dr Petch noted from Dr Bonett's report:151 The stance [the respondent] adopted suggested primary preoccupation with control and feeling persecuted, inferred from her behaviour. There was no overt indication of thoughts to harm others, but this was not clear. Her level of cognitive functioning wasn't clear. She appeared to have poor insight and understanding about her illness or her impaired judgement. She seemed reliant on family members telling her what to do: she appeared to be unable to evaluate the quality of the advice being provided to her. She stated she couldn't remember events documented on her file. 156 Further:152 The purpose of the service, risk assessment, her custody order, her leaving hospital were all explained, and areas which needed exploration, but she refused to explore any of these further. They sometimes wasted thirty minutes in silence. She asked to continue with the meetings. He stated that if she did not yet feel ready to explore are areas of need, he would suspend meetings until she felt ready. She appeared unable to decisively say that she would not address these areas. She eventually stated she would rather cease the sessions than explore these areas of need. 157 Dr Morton provided a report dated 20 March 2025 in which she noted that the respondent's mother had been noted as far back as 2018 as being fearful of the respondent and locking knives away.153 Dr Morton noted that there had been no therapeutic work during the respondent's admission (at the Frankland Centre) to reduce the risk of interpersonal violence. There were still concerns about the respondent's compliance with clozapine. She had said she wished to stop taking the medication. 158 Dr Morton reported that the respondent had engaged superficially with occupational therapy, although she had strengths in motor and process skills. She did gardening and swimming.154 159 Dr Morton made a request to the Tribunal for an early hearing in respect of the respondent. Dr Petch summarised the matters reported by Dr Morton, as follows: 151 Exhibit 4, pages 488 - 489. 152 Exhibit 4, page 489. 153 Exhibit 4, page 490. 154 Exhibit 4, page 490. -- 54 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 55 The relationship of the clinical team with the family had previously been problematic. Dr Morton stated she was the fourth psychiatrist over two years. Ms [TTR] had consistently refused to engage with any of these, or with two psychologists and others during that period. Dr Morton wrote how her relationships with the family also seemed to deteriorate over time. She wrote that Ms [TTR] is hypervigilant in front of the family to any suggestion that she might have been speaking to her psychiatrist and appears fearful when this is raised in front of her family. She asserted to her family that she had not talked to her psychiatrist. She appeared unaffected by the verbal aggression expressed by her father, brother and uncle. The family appeared to be very aggressive to Dr Morton, she wrote the most verbally aggressive she has experienced in her career, and their language contained overt threats. There was lack of clinical engagement which seemed focused on only one outcome, getting leave for Ms [TTR]. The advocate did not think Ms [TTR] would speak to her whilst leave has been withheld. The deterioration in her relationship with the team prompted Dr Morton to concluded that the family were only willing to engage with the team to get her the leave they wanted her to have, without staff being present. They were dismissive of the need for risk assessment. The aggression, threats and verbal abuse from the family seemed to be escalating. Ms [TTR]'s psychosis is poorly controlled. Dr Morton was increasingly concerned about Ms Raws vulnerability, and about her physical health. 160 Dr Morton provided a further report on 31 July 2025. Dr Petch canvasses the details of the report in detail. It was largely concerned with issues relating to the respondent's family's negative interactions with the treating team, and their failure to properly appreciate the risk posed by the respondent. Dr Morton referred to a meeting with the family in February 2025 in which she expressed the hope to them that they would understand the need for a risk assessment and engagement in care before leave could be planned for the respondent.155 Dr Moron had labelled the meeting refreshing and reported that the respondent felt positive. Dr Morton noted that the respondent 'asked about the team but always became mute when issues relating to her internal world were referenced, even indirectly'.156 161 The apparent positive turn in the family's attitude appears to have been short-lived. Dr Morton reported that, at a following meeting, 'it was as if the previous meeting about her leave had not occurred'.157 155 Exhibit 4, page 493. 156 Exhibit 4, page 493. 157 Exhibit 4, page 493. -- 55 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 56 The respondent's father and uncle were angry that the respondent had not been receiving leave in the grounds or the community. They also expressed the view that the requirement for a risk assessment was punitive. 162 It is sufficient to note that Dr Morton referred to a number of instances in which the respondent's family had acted with hostility towards the treating team, including Dr Morton, and the relationship between the family and the treating team 'always depended upon the team's acquiescence to their wishes: they, like [the respondent], become hostile and irritable if their wishes are not met.'158 It was reported that the family was inconsistent about reporting the respondent's psychotic symptoms to the team. They failed to provide information or to assist the team to obtain records, such as the respondent's school records. Dr Morton raised suspicions about trauma in the respondent's past. A foundation for the suspicion lies in the fact that, in her teens, the respondent had reported that she had been sexually abused and introduced to illicit substances.159 However, no information has been forthcoming from either the respondent or her family that might assist the treating team to understand possible causes for apparent symptoms of trauma. 163 Dr Petch noted:160 [Dr Moton's] report stated that the team had discussed whether [the respondent's] family may be contributing to her poor engagement with the team. Her family continued to accuse the team of punishing her by restricting her levels of leave. The family had been upset that her previous psychiatrist Dr Parmar had been trying to intimidate and manipulate Ms [TTR] into talking some more. The team concluded the family were considered to be inappropriate supervisors for escorted community access, and this was communicated to the [Tribunal]. The report suggested some family members were unreliable in reporting of events relating to leaves. 164 It had also been noted in Dr Morton's report that, on 24 December 2024, after the respondent's grants of community leave were ceased, her clozapine levels started to increase. 165 The general impression appears to be that the respondent's family have not been aligned with the respondent's treatment plans, and they had consistently refused to work collaboratively with the treating team. 158 Exhibit 4, page 494. 159 Exhibit 4, page 492. 160 Exhibit 4, page 494. -- 56 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 57 166 Of particular concern, as noted by Dr Petch:161 The family stated their belief that Ms [TTR] is well and that this is obvious, and are dismissive of suggestions she is still psychotic. They attributed her lack of communication to the punitive treatment of the team. They believe she has a right to leave. The report stated that either they do not understand or have no regard for the need for engagement in psychiatric treatment and risk assessment. They do not identify their own behaviour as aggressive, and cannot appreciate the implications of their behaviour on Ms [TTR]. 167 Dr Morton's opinion was that the respondent's mental state appeared to be largely unchanged when compared with her condition in March 2025, and she continued to lack insight.162 168 Dr Petch summarised the situation, based on Dr Morton's report: [The respondent's] lack of progress prompted reflection at the Frankland Centre. The team think she continues to experience psychotic symptoms, and that she had done no therapeutic work to reduce the risk of her reoffending. There are continued concerns about medication compliance, and she has stated she does not want to accept medication. No preparation for engagement with community mental health services has been possible when she doesn't engage with the existing clinical team in the hope that she will be released regardless. The concern is that her risk to the community has not been significantly modified during the admission. Further risks have been identified relating to her potential for absconding to avoid psychiatric care. Her vulnerability is a concern. She didn't disclose a serious surgical issue for two years in the ward. She displays sexualised behaviour on the ward. There is still much to be understood about previous sexual trauma Interview with the respondent on 19 September 2025 169 Dr Petch reported that the respondent knew he was attending to see her, and she seemed to have made a considerable effort in her attire and grooming. She was friendly and smiled, but she also had an intense stare for part of the interview.163 170 I interpose to note that during the hearing on 21 January 2026, I also observed the respondent to maintain an intense stare towards the bench for significant parts of the hearing. 161 Exhibit 4, page 494. 162 Exhibit 4, page 494. 163 Exhibit 4, page 47. -- 57 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 58 171 Dr Petch's description of the interview suggests that the respondent engaged and spoke to a much more significant extent than other practitioners who had assessed her or treated her in the past had been able to obtain from the respondent. 172 The respondent told Dr Petch that her mood was stable, that she had lots of energy and that she was motivated to do her daytime activities.164 She also said her self-esteem was good and she tries to be a good person. She denied feeling anxious. She said she feels balanced at the moment. She recognised that, in the past, she had felt somewhat less balanced, and had cried on occasions.165 She said she 'used to have schizophrenia', starting at the age of 17, and that it comes and goes and never really goes away. She said she was not really sure why it did not go away, but said she would rather not explain.166 She said the medicine tends to work and reduces her symptoms.167 173 The respondent told Dr Petch that she feels safe and looked after.168 She said she enjoyed gardening. She gave an account of her daily routine, which was unremarkable. She said that her leave from the unit was now tightly controlled, and any visits had to be accompanied by two members of staff. She did not see herself as a risk.169 174 The respondent told Dr Petch her family were well, and that she had a good relationship with them, although she had not had any relationship with her mother since the incident. She said she would like to go home and described pleasant outdoor activities in which she would like to engage. 175 The respondent told Dr Petch that 'things were pretty good' and that she was now thinking clearly.170 She said she was being treated with a lot of medicine which gave her side effects. She attributed her serious surgical issue to constipation caused by the clozapine. She said she was preparing for a colonoscopy and subsequent surgery. She said that despite this, she was still taking clozapine. 164 Exhibit 4, page 498. 165 Exhibit 4, page 498. 166 Exhibit 4, page 499. 167 Exhibit 4, page 499. 168 Exhibit 4, page 497. 169 Exhibit 4, pages 497 - 498. 170 Exhibit 4, page 498. -- 58 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 59 176 Dr Petch then asked the respondent about the index offence. He reported as follows:171 I asked her about what happened when she stabbed her mother. She said it had been traumatic. She said that she would like to tell me what had happened but was not going to. She then said that a strange thing had happened. I asked her why she felt she could not talk about it, and she told me that she was worried that people would not believe her. She was sure that it would not happen again. On further very gentle probing, she alluded but did not confirm to not being in full control at the time (she may have been experiencing a degree of passivity where her actions were not fully her own). She said that she did not really understand what had happened, and could not fully describe it. She denied any thought broadcast, but hinted that there may have been some thought insertion (experiencing thoughts in her mind that she knew were not her own and had been put there from outside). She denied thought broadcast (that anyone else knew what she might have been thinking because her thoughts had been somehow leaking). She wasn't sure about voices. She thought that she might have experienced them in the past, and perhaps at the time of the offence, and at intermittent periods since. She then told me that she now knows that the medication she was taking at the time was not right. She knew that some drugs of another kind had been slipped into her for a while: she didn't know this at the time, but knew for sure later. She didn't know what they might have been. She said it had been something from a chemist, a form of psychiatric medicine. She said it was 'a dodgy batch' that had been deliberately tampered with. She thought that her medication might in fact have been [swapped] for methamphetamines. She did not say how this then led her to stab her mother. 177 I note that Dr Petch said in his report that the respondent: … seemed on the verge of making a revelation about her attack on her mother (this is how she has presented many times previously), but stopped short of doing so. She seemed to feel a degree of relief as if she had made a revelation that she had not previously divulged, but seemed worried that perhaps she had revealed more than she had intended.172 Interview with the respondent's previous guardian 178 Before turning to Dr Petch's assessment, I note that he also spoke with the respondent's uncle, Mr D, on 1 October 2025, when he was still her guardian. Mr D said he had been worried that some 171 Exhibit 4, page 498. 172 Exhibit 4, page 499. -- 59 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 60 assumptions may have been made about the state of the respondent's parent's relationship. He said there had been no sexual abuse.173 He said that when the respondent's mother separated from her father, the children were adults and had a good healthy relationship with their mother. He said that a fundamental problem at the time of the offence was that the respondent was on depot medication, and the treating team had not attended the day before to administer the medication to the respondent. He said the respondent's mother had phoned the team and told them that the respondent was deteriorating mentally, and then the event happened. Mr D offered a theory for what happened, but it was no more than that, and I do not attach any weight to it. 179 Mr D said that, when the respondent lived with him for three to four months, she 'spoke back to unseen people' and 'sometimes it was quite a deep coherent conversation'.174 He said she definitely heard voices. 180 Mr D provided his perspective of the friction the family and the respondent had experienced with the treating team, suggesting that the respondent's privileges were removed even though she had done nothing wrong. It is sufficient to note that, overall, what Mr D said confirmed the distrust the family felt towards the treating team, and did not allay concerns that the family does not have an appropriate degree of insight into the respondent's risk of committing a violent offence and the need for the respondent to engage meaningfully in a therapeutic process that might lead to a better understanding of the factors that contributed to the alleged offence and measures that can be taken to adequately mitigate the risk in the community. 181 Mr D said he wanted the respondent released to supported accommodation. He said she needs a relapse plan and deserves a better quality of life than she is getting.175 I note that this may reflect the phenomena described by the treating team whereby the respondent gives conflicting information to her treating team on the one hand and her family on the other. Mr D's view would suggest that the respondent has indicated to her family that she is not happy with the quality of life at Frankland Centre. That would not be surprising. However, as I outlined above, she told Dr Petch that things were pretty good and that she felt safe and looked after. 173 Exhibit 4, page 499. 174 Exhibit 4, page 499. 175 Exhibit 4, page 499. -- 60 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 61 Dr Petch's assessment of the respondent Diagnoses of psychiatric disorders 182 Dr Petch stated in his report that the purpose of this evaluation was primarily to evaluate the risk of the respondent committing a further violent serious offence in the community, and the level of risk that she poses without an ECO. He said that, in order to achieve that and place the risk into context, he had first reached some conclusions regarding the respondent's psychiatric diagnoses, because her disorders contribute to her risk if they remain unmanaged, but they also potentially provide ongoing avenues for risk management.176 183 Dr Petch used the diagnostic system of the American Psychiatric Association known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), but explained that the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria are guidelines for making diagnoses, which should ultimately be informed by clinical judgment. Further, DSM-5 was developed to meet the needs of clinicians, public health professionals, and research investigators rather than all of the technical needs of the courts and legal professionals.177 184 With those provisos, Dr Petch was of the opinion that there is evidence to suggest that the respondent suffers from schizophrenia, multiple drug use disorders (currently in remission) and an unspecified eating disorder. He set out the evidence in some detail. 185 Schizophrenia is a psychiatric syndrome characterized by psychotic symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized speech, by negative symptoms such as decreased motivation and diminished expressiveness, and by cognitive deficits involving impaired executive functions, memory, and speed of mental processing.178 The respondent was diagnosed with the illness whilst in the community in 2016 and, while her mental state has varied over time, she has been found to be psychotic to a greater or lesser extent almost continuously ever since.179 Dr Petch was of the opinion that there are two main areas of impairments arising from the respondent's schizophrenia: the chronic psychosis, and a deterioration in volition 176 Exhibit 4, page 500. 177 Exhibit 4, page 502. 178 Exhibit 4, page 501. 179 Exhibit 4, page 502. -- 61 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 62 (also known as negative symptoms) with associated cognitive deterioration.180 186 Dr Petch said that the respondent's psychosis consists of delusions, hallucinations and thought disorder. The delusions include delusions of persecution, delusions regarding possession of thoughts and erotomanic delusions (relating to the 'romantic' stalking of her former teacher).181 The hallucinations appear to have manifested mainly as auditory hallucinations - the hearing of voices and responding to unseen stimuli. These have been present persistently, and they sometimes perplex her, while at other times amusing her. Dr Petch noted that it is not known whether the respondent experiences command hallucinations, whereby she feels compelled to act in ways she is told, eroding her own volition. In that regard, Dr Petch said:182 They are sometimes difficult to detect because they sometimes tell sufferers not to tell anyone about them. This might be why she is so guarded about revealing them, and why she cannot reveal them when she is seen so often conversing or responding to what is most likely to be continuous auditory hallucinations. It is highly likely they were present during the offence, but it is not known if they influenced her to stab her mother. 187 Dr Petch noted that the respondent sometimes appears to cope with the voices better than at other times. 188 In respect of thought disorder, Dr Petch said it is very characteristic of schizophrenia, and it was occasionally described in the records concerning the respondent. He said that 'loosening of association' occurred when she was very unwell. This thought disorder denotes a loss of normal structure of speech and thinking, when the respondent came across as muddled and illogical.183 189 In respect of cognitive deterioration, this is referred to as a 'so- called defect state'.184 Dr Petch noted that the respondent has appeared to present with that state for many years. He observed that, in the early days there was a fair degree of chaos in her conduct, with bizarre, disinhibited behaviour (being naked in public on at least two recorded occasions), with general levels of disruption. On one occasion, the 180 Exhibit 4, page 502. 181 Exhibit 4, page 502. Erotomania is a delusional disorder in which delusional disorder in which a person has a fixed belief that another person, often someone of higher status, is in love with them. 182 Exhibit 4, page 503. 183 Exhibit 4, page 504. 184 Exhibit 4, page 504. -- 62 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 63 respondent allegedly removed floorboards. On a number of occasions, she exhibited self-harm behaviour. Dr Petch further noted that this negative state includes a chronic lack of drive, aimless activity or inactivity, a state of general ambivalence, few leisure interests, self-neglect, social withdrawal, self-isolation, emotional apathy, odd social behaviour, poor rapport, slowness of speech, and vague speech with stilted responses and little content. He noted that the respondent was often difficult to engage in conversation, and sometimes she was mute.185 190 Dr Petch was of the opinion that the respondent usually has little insight into her illness, symptoms or behaviour, and her judgment seems to be chronically impaired. He said that since the attack on her mother, the respondent has not been able to describe what she did or why, and, when asked, 'blanks people out'.186 Dr Petch noted that, sometimes, this appears aloof, cold, indifferent and deliberate; at other times the respondent seems perplexed or confused, offering little or no rational or even psychotic explanation.187 Dr Petch was also of the opinion that the respondent is deemed to have negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a defect state, for which he considered there is plenty of evidence. Dr Petch said this 'has profound implications for her prospects of successful rehabilitation into the community'.188 191 Dr Petch noted that over the years, the respondent's mental state has fluctuated, which is consistent with the natural course of the disorder, being one of relapses and remissions. Possible reasons for the fluctuation may include that different treatment regimens have provoked different responses. The use of drugs has also been known to cause a deterioration in the respondent's condition. Dr Petch further noted:189 [The respondent] is also seemingly susceptible to low mood, disappointment, loss, frustration or stress of any kind, and she had a tendency to become emotionally dysregulated for a period when she does not get what she is expecting or hoping for. This was sometimes but not always associated with the regular theme of unprovoked episodes of aggression or homicidal ideation in the past, or acting out behaviours, which were largely unpredictable. At times she appeared to have little or no control over her actions. 185 Exhibit 4, page 504. 186 Exhibit 4, page 504. 187 Exhibit 4, page 504. 188 Exhibit 4, page 504. 189 Exhibit 4, page 505. -- 63 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 64 192 Dr Petch noted that, most unfortunately for the respondent, her schizophrenia has proved highly resistant to anti-psychotic medication. Her symptoms have persisted whatever medication was prescribed. Dr Petch said that, when symptoms persist, it is common to try increased doses, but many of the drugs are powerful and can have very unpleasant side effects, many of which were experienced by the respondent, compounding the fact that the drugs were ineffective at reducing the respondent's symptoms. Consistently with the history outlined above, Dr Petch said that some of the drugs may have reduced the intensity of the symptoms for a while, but they did not get rid of them, and it is understandable that the respondent did not want to take them.190 193 Dr Petch noted that, once a number of treatments have been tried in adequate doses for long enough, schizophrenia can attract the label treatment resistant, and that has been the case with the respondent. He said that clozapine is an antipsychotic drug that is used for treatment resistant schizophrenia. In some people who are otherwise treatment resistant, schizophrenia does respond to this drug. This occurred in the respondent's case, 'but only up to a point'.191 Dr Petch said:192 Some of the intensity of some of her symptoms may have reduced somewhat. Overall[,] her degree of functionality gradually but significantly improved as she became less aloof and was described as less isolated and more responsive. However, even with high doses this was not sufficient to eradicate her symptoms altogether, so for most of the time she has [seemingly] continued to experience psychosis. 194 Dr Petch identified a number of possible causes for the lack of effectiveness of the clozapine in the respondent's case. Some people just do not respond to any medication, including clozapine, and remain chronically psychotic. In Dr Petch's opinion, this appears to be partially the case with the respondent. Secondly, the respondent has been labelled a fast metaboliser of the drug, so the drug may break down quickly in her body, before it can be effective. Thirdly, smoking increases the speed of metabolism. The respondent is a smoker. Finally, the respondent has been thought to purge medication after taking it, so it cannot be absorbed in her body.193 All of these factors 190 Exhibit 4, page 505. 191 Exhibit 4, page 505. 192 Exhibit 4, page 505. 193 Exhibit 4, page 505. -- 64 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 65 resulted in chronic low levels of clozapine being detected in the respondent's blood, which has a significant effect on the efficacy of the medication.194 195 Dr Petch noted that the side effects, which include a drop in white blood cells and constipation remain ongoing challenges in the respondent's treatment and 'underlie one of the reasons [the respondent] requires such intense ongoing monitoring of her mental state'.195 196 In summary, Dr Petch concluded it was clear that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, and it appears to be 'chronic, treatment resistant, and currently not even in partial remission at present, even with treatment'.196 197 In respect of the diagnosis of substance abuse disorder, Dr Petch said:197 Her drug use is now in remission by virtue of the restrictions under her custody order. It is not known if she would wish to return to drug use. She has not yet participated in any [drug related work] to explore her drug use, her need for drugs, the relationship between drugs and her illness and her offending, the risks of future use, or the need for a relapse prevention plan. It is not known what at this stage use of drugs would have upon her mental state. As it has done in the past, the risk is one of relapse and a deterioration of her psychosis. The risk is that any deterioration would undermine her progress and would be likely to increase the risk of future offending. 198 Dr Petch said it is difficult to know whether an eating disorder is present. It is not necessary to discuss that further, as it has not been suggested it may contribute to her risk of committing a serious offence. Risk assessment 199 Dr Petch used the HCR-20 v3 (version 3) assessment tool to assess the respondent's risk of violence. He explained that a structured professional judgment approach to risk assessment has consistently been shown to be more reliable than other assessments when considering risk of violence. A combination of historical data, clinical 194 Exhibit 4, page 506. 195 Exhibit 4, page 506. 196 Exhibit 4, page 506. 197 Exhibit 4, page 507. -- 65 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 66 assessment data and structured assessment tools are widely regarded as being required when attempting to evaluate risk of future violence.198 200 The HCR-20 v3 (version 3) is a structured professional judgement tool used to assess risk of violence. It includes 20 risk factors for violence, with 10 historical items, five clinical items and five risk management items. These are used to assist clinical judgment in the assessment and management of risk. Dr Petch noted that this tool had been applied on several previous occasions, and the outcomes were set out in Dr Pecth's outline of prior assessments and treatment of the respondent. He noted that his assessment of the current risk factors and their applicability may be somewhat different to the evaluations that had been made by others. It is not necessary to traverse the very detailed analysis based on the application of the HCR-20 v3 contained in Dr Petch's report, which spans several pages. It is sufficient to note that Dr Petch was of the view that the respondent had all but one of the historical factors present, five clinical items and five risk management items. The historical items are problems with: violence; other antisocial behaviour; relationships; employment; major mental disorder; substance misuse; traumatic experiences; treatment or supervision response. The five clinical items are problems with: insight; possible violent ideation or intent (which Dr Petch was of the view cannot de discounted); symptoms of major mental disorder; treatment and supervision response; instability. The five risk management items related to problems with: professional services and plans; the respondent's living situation; personal support; treatment or supervision response; stress or coping.199 201 Dr Petch said:200 I disagree with the proposition that seems to have been put forward to the [Board] and latterly the [Tribunal] at times by successive teams at the Frankland Centre that just because Ms [TTR] cannot explore the details of her mental state or her offence, that an accurate risk assessment cannot be completed. Of course, the lack of accessibility of the details of her offence has to be taken into account in undertaking the risk assessment, and as in all things, unfortunately the lack of clarity and the paucity of understanding serve to escalate the risk. I would agree that such an assessment has to be provisional until such time as more information comes to light, at which point the risk may reduce. On the other hand, it might rise, depending on what is revealed. It 198 Exhibit 4, page 509. 199 Exhibit 4, pages 513 - 514. 200 Exhibit 4, page 514. -- 66 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 67 would be part of any risk management plan to try to establish more information about her mental state and what drove the offence. (emphasis added) 202 Dr Petch referred briefly to the respondent's background, noting that the trajectory on which she appeared to be set was disrupted at the age of 16, when she deteriorated, with odd behaviours, changes in personality, substance issue, and familial and relationship conflicts. He said that the causes of the deterioration are not fully understood, although the gradual emergence of a serious mental illness undoubtedly made a significant contribution.201 He said that the extent to which this was cause or effect is not known. Further, he postulated that the amount of trauma the respondent experienced in her young life may have been significant. 203 Dr Petch noted that the respondent's descent into substance misuse and psychosis not only fragmented her mind; it fragmented her life.202 He said:203 It was while her mental state was deteriorating, perhaps due to under- treatment, that the stabbing of her mother occurred. While her mother's back was turned, without warning, she helped herself to a sturdy weapon and plunged it into the centre of her mother's chest from behind. I think that this cannot have been anything other than a homicidal attack. What is difficult to work out is why the attack did not persist: in many such cases, particularly if revenge or hatred is a motive, a frenzy follows. The attack was spontaneous, seemingly motiveless and came out of nowhere. It would have been impossible to predict (important for future risk assessment). 204 I note that the respondent was not charged with an offence involving an intention to kill or even to cause a life endangering injury. In his evidence at the hearing, Dr Petch explained that, in expressing the view that it was a 'homicidal attack', he was relying on the fact that the respondent had plunged a knife into the middle of her mother's back, her chest, where it is common knowledge that there are vital organs that are likely to be significantly damaged and is likely to lead to death.204 He was not relying on previously reported 'homicidal ideation', which were not necessarily in respect of her mother.205 I do not consider it open to draw any inference to the effect that it was a 201 Exhibit 4, page 514. 202 Exhibit 4, page 515. 203 Exhibit 4, page 515. 204 ts 31 - 32. 205 ts 32. -- 67 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 68 'homicidal attack' in the absence of a trial in respect of that issue. However, that does not preclude the conclusion, which I consider flows from Dr Petch's assessment, that the type of violence inflicted in the stabbing had the potential to be lethal, and the risk of similar violence in the future carries the same potential. 205 In his report, Dr Petch purported to rely on the respondent's statements at the scene, 'I stabbed her' and 'I didn't mean to', as a basis from which to infer that the respondent's actions in stabbing her mother may have been the result of a command hallucination that eroded her volition. Dr Petch acknowledged that, '[l]ike all that has gone before in considering [the respondent's] offence, this is mere speculation and has no greater weight than any other suggestions that have been made'.206 He noted that one member of the clinical team has suggested the possibility that the respondent may not have been psychotic at all at the time of stabbing her mother, or that the psychosis might not have been the main driver. However, Dr Petch asked rhetorically, 'If not, what was the source of the homicidal rage against her mother that prompted the assault?'207 A difficulty with that question is the assumption that the respondent acted in a rage. 206 Dr Petch acknowledged that the possible explanations postulated by him are conjecture, and he suspects 'we should face the possibility that she really does not know why it happened, and that we will never know'.208 However, the unknown has implications for the assessment of risk. As Dr Petch puts it:209 This then does have a significant bearing on the degree of risk it is believed she might pose. With understanding, it might be possible to put all this conjecture to bed, and have a more focused appreciation of what the real risks (especially to her mother) are. Until then, the risks to others (particularly family members, her mother, people supporting her, her guardian, her administrator (uncle and father), people who might have caused her harm or against whom she harbours resentment (whether psychotic or not)) must be considered real. The teams looking after her of course have understood this, and have proceeded accordingly. Alas her management lately appears to have become as fragmented as her mind, with battles raging between the team and her, and between the team and her family. This is partly because neither Ms [TTR] nor the family share this same perspective. Some of the risks associated with managing Ms [TTR] do come from the dynamic that is 206 Exhibit 4, page 516. 207 Exhibit 4, page 516. 208 Exhibit 4, page 516. 209 Exhibit 4, page 516. -- 68 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 69 playing out with the family. It adds uncertainty to the obscurity that already surrounds her mental state. 207 Dr Petch considers that there are number of possible explanations for why the respondent does not disclose her mental state, but all are speculation.210 Having referred again to the breakdown in trust between the respondent and her family on the one hand, and the clinical team on the other, Dr Petch said:211 Quite apart from the potential risks that are left unanswered, I am left wondering how Ms Raw's care can proceed, such is the lack of mutual trust and the almost total breakdown of any therapeutic relationship. If an extended custody order is imposed by the court, there is nowhere else in WA that could accommodate her. There is no other high secure unit. She could not be managed in another forensic unit out of state as that is beyond the jurisdiction. The Frankland Centre have acted in the only possible way in the circumstances, and have put in place another clinical team, alas the sixth in 3 years. It is not known whether the current team will fare better … 208 Dr Petch further emphasised the significance of the 'unknown risk' as follows:212 Taking a reductionist view, it is clear that Ms [TTR] has schizophrenia and is chronically psychotic. Her mental state is largely inaccessible for reasons that are unknown. The motive for the attack is unknown, but it occurred when she was in a similar state of psychosis to that which continues to prevail. Certainly her inability to reveal details of her inner psychotic experiences cannot lead the team to conclude that her mental state has changed. This means that she may pose as much risk as she did on the day of the offence. It is not possible to say that she does not. Therefore the risks of a further attack are real, significant, but ultimately unknown. It cannot be assumed that because the risk is unknown it does not exist. What needs to be managed then is this unknown risk, as this unknown risk cannot be allowed to be realised. Ms Raw's schizophrenia persists. She still receives treatment in the form of oral anti-psychotic medication. The symptoms still bother her from time to time. Her schizophrenia is controlled but only to some extent with the medication: this needs to continue indefinitely if the schizophrenia is to remain under control. Without medication it is probable that her mental state would significantly deteriorate. If this occurred, the risk of violence is likely to become rapidly and significantly greater and is likely to become more serious and unpredictable. If intoxication were to occur with drugs, this may make 210 Exhibit 4, page 516. 211 Exhibit 4, page 518. 212 Exhibit 4, pages 518 - 519. -- 69 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 70 any psychosis worse. Coupled with associated disinhibition, the risk of more serious violence would be likely to escalate. (emphasis added) 209 Dr Petch again referred to the multiple factors that have been identified as drivers for the respondent's 'bizarre behaviour and ultimately her offending', including psychosis, stress, drug use in the past, impulsivity and recklessness, poor decision-making and impaired judgment, lack of consequential thinking (especially when stressed, aroused, emotional or intoxicated), poor response to authority, poor self-management, with difficulties controlling her emotions, lack of community supports she could engage with and impaired level of insight.213 210 Dr Petch then considered the extent to which the respondent is ready to integrate into the community and comply with a CSO, in the event that an ECO were not made. His assessment was as follows:214 There has been little planning to prepare her for the community. She is not engaged at a basic level with activities on the ward designed to assist with developing a skill set required for successful community living. She is not engaged with the team rehabilitation efforts. She has not started having to undertake the normal activities of daily living outside hospital, and it is not yet known how she will cope with these tasks, despite a detailed occupational therapy assessment. She is not at present venturing into the community. She has not yet spent a night on overnight leave. She does not have any identified accommodation options. Although she has NDIS funding the team have not considered her yet ready to make use of their support. I have some sympathy with that view. She has articulated a wish to discontinue her medication, and the team still think she would stop if given the opportunity. I agree with that assessment. She is not deemed likely to comply with any order: she has a history of not doing so with community treatment orders previously. In the past she has absconded from hospital, not complied with CTOs [Community Treatment Orders], been admitted involuntarily to hospital and has twice fled the jurisdiction to escape CTOs. She does not seem to have breached police or court order but has breached the LOA Order imposed by the [Tribunal]. The extent to which she was implicated in this is not known. Most of these breaches, whilst deliberate, are probably most favourably considered as a reflection of her difficulties, but it does not inspire confidence that she could cope with the more stringent and complex conditions likely to be attached to any extended 213 Exhibit 4, page 519. 214 Exhibit 4, page 519. -- 70 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 71 community supervision order. She may not understand or remember conditions, and I do not think that even with support would be able or indeed willing to abide by them 211 Dr Petch was of the view that the respondent needs the containment of maximum-security care at present.215 He identified a number of matters that militate against the adequate manageability of her risk of violence in the community:216 Her mental state is marginally more stable with the current regime of medication, but her psychosis still persists, and her mental state is still changeable. She has not been able to function in the community when left to her own devices, and last offended when she was in the community receiving the support of her family. She does not seem to have responded well to the containment provided by previous community treatment orders, nor the support provided by community mental health services. She does not have a good working and trusting supportive relationship with her treating team. Her motivation to get well and stay well and remain in the community does at time appear to be somewhat ambivalent. Her social circumstances if she was released would be unstable. She might be able to access some NDIS support, but what is provided at present would not be sufficient. It is not known if she would be able to develop any form of relationship with those providing such support, or how she might react if any restrictions were put on her to assist her to comply with any condition. 212 Dr Petch noted the significance of the results of the HCR-20v3 assessment:217 The risk assessment conducted in this report includes the HCR-20v3. The HCR-20 identifies factors which make a contribution to her risk, and even those that are historical remain highly relevant to her risk status. This means that really at any stage, in response to a stressor, which may or may not be apparent to her support team, she has the propensity to develop more intense psychotic symptoms, and these could be manifest suddenly through violence. Previously this has been directed at a person she has known, loved and lived with, and may have been in a position of influence or even authority over her. The people most likely to be targeted by any future attacks are those most close to her, and this includes any future support workers or members of her family. She is unlikely to intend to target these people or have no inkling that an attack is about to happen. The family do not 215 Exhibi 4, page 520. 216 Exhibi 4, page 520. 217 Exhibit 4, page 520. -- 71 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 72 seem to recognise, this which escalates the risk to them. When the last attack occurred, it was unexpected. (emphasis added) 213 Dr Petch went on to consider the significance of relapse into substance use:218 The risk of her relapsing into substance misuse is dependent on several factors. These include the level of support she has, how she structures her days, the stability of her mood, her anxiety, how she copes with difficult and new situations, the exposure to others who are drinking or using drugs and any peer pressure there may be, the stability of her accommodation, her health, the availability of any treatment should it be required, and the availability of drugs. If these all remain optimal, the risks of relapsing into drug use is reduced. If these factors come into play, the risks of substance misuse will escalate. She does not have a relapse prevention plan. Once use begins, descent into intoxication and regular use may not be far away. In turn substance misuse for her is likely to precipitate a major deterioration of her mental state, leading to an exacerbation of her psychosis, as it has done in the past 214 Dr Petch concluded that, overall, the risk of the respondent committing an offence of violence may be significant. Further, if she committed an act of violence, it is likely to be catastrophic rather than minor, and would be a serious offence for the purposes of the CLMI Act. He considered that a violent offence could occur in one of two ways:219 First, I think the most likely scenario would be that a spontaneous assault in response to a fleeting psychotic symptom could occur. This has occurred before. If a weapon was close by it might be used, then the risk of a serious violence would escalate exponentially. The other way is possibly less likely: she might develop a delusional belief about someone else in the community and act on it in a similar way to the index offence, or re-establish her stalking behaviour. I see no indication that this is a serious risk, but it is one that needs to be considered. This is more likely where there is no support, and she has returned to using drugs and is not taking medication. 215 Dr Petch was of the opinion that it is more likely than not that the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence if released into the community is significant, and the risk will remain indefinitely, particularly if her mental state remains obscure. The propensity that 218 Exhibit 4, page 520. 219 Exhibit 4, pages 520 - 521. -- 72 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 73 she would commit such an offence is underpinned by her psychosis and her cognitive decline arising from her schizophrenia.220 216 Dr Petch considered that there is 'still much work that needs to be done and much more that needs to be understood' before the respondent could be clinically assessed as being 'safe enough to begin considering the first step toward discharge into the community'.221 He considered that the current leave of absence orders could be carried over, with conditions, to enable those first steps to be taken. 217 While Dr Petch considered the respondent would meet the criteria for requiring a CSO to be made, if an ECO is not made, he did not consider that a CSO would provide adequate protection against the risk that the respondent would commit a serious violent offence. His final opinion was as follows:222 My opinion is that from a clinical perspective, if an extended custody order is not imposed, she would meet these criteria. However, I understand that under the provisions of the extended community supervision order, if one is imposed she would be released straight away from hospital, and would immediately reside in the community. None of the necessary supports would be in place, including stable accommodation. It would be a huge step for her to take, from being in hospital to being in the community full time. This is because Ms [TTR] is not yet ready to leave hospital. As outlined above I would anticipate rapid clinical deterioration. Very moderate degrees of stress and disappointment have triggered a deterioration of her psychotic symptoms in hospital. I think she would cease taking medication and disengage from services. I would anticipate an increase of stress, anxiety, and that her coping abilities would be exceeded. This is because of institutionalisation. If she turned to substance misuse in such circumstances (although I do not think the risk of this is significant), in my view it would make a serious relapse of her psychosis much more likely and imminent. Her mental state would remain unknown and therefore highly unpredictable. I do not think she would abide by the conditions in any order. I think there is a possibility she would depart the jurisdiction. I do not think it would be possible for services to manage her mental illness on a voluntary basis. The Mental Health Act 2014 has not previously been sufficient to prevent her from deteriorating, absconding, and ultimately offending. I don't think it would be possible to contain her level of risk through risk management strategies. In this scenario the risk of serious violence 220 Exhibit 4, page 521. 221 Exhibit 4, page 521. 222 Exhibit 4, page 522. -- 73 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 74 as defined by the Act becomes much more serious, and probable. I also think that she would be at serious risk of exploitation. 218 Finally, Dr Petch stated in his report:223 In my opinion, should the court determine that an extended custody order is required, the duration of the order needed for [the respondent] is unknown. Dr Petch's oral evidence 219 As was outlined above, Dr Petch stated in his report:224 [The respondent's] social circumstances, if she was released, would be unstable. She might be able to access some NDIS support, but what is provided at present would not be sufficient. 220 At the hearing, he was asked why the respondent's current NDIS package would not be sufficient if she were to be released into the community fulltime. Dr Petch said that he thought the NDIS assessments that have been done so far probably do not meet all the needs that are likely to be identified at the point of discharge,225 and that he thought there are various packages of additional care that may be needed in terms of day-to-day support to enable the respondent to engage in proper independent living.226 Dr Petch said that, in his experience of looking at packages of care for people who are similarly afflicted with a similar range of disorders, the amount of support that is provided has been well in excess of what is proposed for the respondent. At this stage the respondent has a preliminary package of care and does not need a full package, as she still resides at the Frankland Centre. However, if she were to move into the community, she would require day-to-day support.227 221 As to the duration of any ECO the court might make, Dr Petch was reminded of the comment in his report that the duration is unknown. He was asked for his opinion as to the likely time it would take for the respondent to have good prospects of making a successful transition from the Frankland Centre to fulltime living in the community. Dr Petch clarified that the reason he thought the duration would be unknown was because, upon reading the legislation, which stipulates a statutory review period for an ECO, he did not think it would be 223 Exhibit 4, page 523. 224 Exhibit 4, page 520. 225 ts 16. 226 ts 17. 227 ts 17. -- 74 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 75 necessary to assess a time frame for the duration of an order that may be imposed on the respondent. He was of the opinion that, in deciding on the length of an ECO, the court would have to balance the need for regular review, the onerous nature of such hearings and the impact on the respondent's mental state and instability in the trajectory of care of the respondent. Given the respondent's trajectory of care, and that there has been some progress over the last few years, Dr Petch was of the opinion that it would likely to be a few years before she would be ready to take the next step of transition towards living within the community, and that it would be very difficult to judge because there are so many unknowns in terms of the forthcoming rate of progress. 222 I asked Dr Petch to further explain his suggestion that periodic reviews might have a detrimental impact on the respondent, specifically, if there would be a chance that such proceedings may cause some regression of any progress the respondent may have made upon the lead up to a hearing taking place.228 Dr Petch clarified that there is a degree of anticipation at having to see various professionals, go through the assessment process again, having to discuss matters again with counsel, and so on, and that it would likely be a stressful scenario to be going through a Supreme Court hearing. However, looking at the trajectory of progress, he was of the view that it would likely to be a significant period of time before the respondent would be ready for consideration to be discharged from the order.229 Dr Petch ultimately expressed the view that a period of four years would not be unreasonable, but he thought it may require longer than that.230 He acknowledged that, if more time was required, a further ECO could be sought. On the oher hand, if the respondent progressed more quickly, she could be released at an earlier time upon a yearly review.231 223 In cross-examination, Dr Petch was asked about his assessment that it was likely the respondent's mental state has not changed since the index offence. He acknowledged that the respondent's family had expressed the view that the respondent has improved in her interactions and her ability to engage.232 He said: I think there has been considerable improvement since she arrived in hospital, but I think there was a deterioration after the offence which occurred during a fairly lengthy period in custody. So, my view was 228 ts 18. 229 ts 19. 230 ts 19. 231 ts 19. 232 ts 20. -- 75 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 76 that I didn't know enough about her current mental state to be able to determine the extent to which her mental state had improved beyond the point of the offence, because so little is known about it despite the amount of care and the amount of time she's been in hospital. So I thought it was a very challenging conclusion to reach, but I couldn't be confident after reviewing all the materials, all the regular reports that had gone in to the tribunals and all the other reports that had been written by other practitioners, as well as my interview of TTR, I couldn't say that there had been sufficient progress to say to the court that I was confident that the risk had sufficiently reduced to the point that an extended custody order wouldn't be necessary. 224 However, Dr Petch agreed there had been some improvement in the respondent's cognitive functioning.233 When he was asked whether that bodes well for the respondent's ability to live in the community and address her daily living needs, Dr Petch said it was a necessary start.234 He agreed that NDIS funding could provide for the supports necessary to provide the respondent with assistance in that regard.235 225 Dr Petch was asked about some of the risk factors he took into account in applying the HCR-20v3 risk assessment tool. One factor (H8) concerned traumatic experiences. He agreed that that factor was something that required clarification, but he did not think it was particularly material to his overall evaluation.236 226 Dr Petch agreed that there was no record of the respondent having violent attitudes. While there were reports in the past of the respondent having 'homicidal ideation', the circumstances were never clarified, and he thought such a description was unhelpful.237 As counsel for the respondent noted, the point of the questioning on that issue was that, to the extent that reliance was placed on historical materials, context was not provided to enable an assessment to be made of the weight that might be given to a reference of that kind.238 227 Dr Petch agreed that discussions between the respondent's family and the clinical team about progressing to having periods of leave in the community had led to difficulties, and that this was a matter of considerable concern. He was of the view that the differences needed to be resolved, as it will be material to the respondent's progress.239 233 ts 21. 234 ts 21. 235 ts 21. 236 ts 22. 237 ts 22 - 23. 238 ts 24. 239 ts 25. -- 76 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 77 Dr Petch agreed that some of the outside factors involving the withdrawal of cooperation or lack of communication by the family had caused some delays in the respondent's progress.240 228 Dr Petch confirmed that he was not confident the respondent would continue with her treatment in the community, which would be necessary to reducing her risk.241 229 In terms of the respondent's management of the stress that has attended changes in her leave arrangements and the communication issues involving her family, Dr Petch said she had no choice but to manage it. He said she has had to live through it, and he did not think it had been easy.242 He noted that any improvement has been despite those conditions. 230 In answer to a question from me, Dr Petch explained his 'reductionist view' in his report as follows:243 [By] 'a reductionist view', I mean boiling it all down so the core essence is that at the point of the assault, an unpredictable event occurred arising almost certainly from an abnormality in her mental state that drove the assault. And we don't understand what that is because it's never been clearly divulged. She's been chronically unwell since that time. She was beforehand, but since that time, and it has not been able to be clarified whether those drivers to the assault are still present. We can't say they are, but we cannot say they are not. 231 Dr Petch reiterated that we do not know why the respondent has not disclosed her thinking, either in relation to the time of the index offence or when she is being assessed, although she appeared to have been on the verge of making a disclosure on a number of occasions.244 Dr Petch said:245 And … what it means is that it's very difficult to - in assessing her risk of what will happen now to know whether some of those thought processes are still present, which could drive a new attack on someone else for whatever reason now or in the future. And until we really understand that, it's difficult to be able to say the risk to the community is containable. They thought the risk was - to the community was containable at the time of the attack. It came out of nowhere. She was under mental health care under the Mental Health Act, and - and not 240 ts 25 - 26. 241 ts 26. 242 ts 27. 243 ts 28. 244 ts 28 - 29. 245 ts 29 - 30. -- 77 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 78 under the Mental Health Act, in and out of hospital during that period. She was on treatment, and the attack occurred despite that. So it's really trying to understand what the relationship is between the treatment, the conditions. What was the relationship between her and her mother that drove that offence? Was it really psychotic? Someone in the team suggested it might not be. All I'm saying is that it's a big blank at the moment. And that's the nub of the problem. So the reductionist view is we don't know. 232 To a further question in cross-examination, Dr Petch said that it is better to have the information than not, because then one has an identified risk, and can work to reduce that risk.246 Community Corrections Extended Order Assessment dated 4 December 2025 233 The respondent has remained at the Frankland Centre for the entirety of her custody order. On 26 September 2024, the Tribunal assigned Ms Tayla Evans, a Senior CCO with ACC CLMI Services, as a supervising officer to the respondent. Ms Evans prepared the Extended Order Assessment report dated 3 December 2025. 234 Supervision appointments commenced on 11 October 2024 and continue to occur on a monthly basis at the Frankland Centre.247 235 According to Ms Evans: Whilst Ms [TTR] presents well in supervision with the SO, she requires extensive encouragement and motivation to engage, which appears to be gradually improving. Significant efforts were made to assist her in preparing for and understanding the Extended Order Application process, including the interview with the Expert Witness. 236 Throughout the respondent's engagement with ACC CLMI Services, the respondent has often expressed a desire to be discharged from the Frankland Centre and has said that the order has prohibited her from being able to spend time with her family in the community.248 237 Ms Evans outlined the respondent's compliance with the current custody order, and considered her capacity to respond to the requirements of any further order that might be made. 246 ts 30. 247 Exhibit 4, page 526. 248 Exhibit 4, page 526. -- 78 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 79 238 As was outlined earlier in these reasons, the respondent has been granted periods of conditional leave of absence by the Tribunal. Ms Evans reported that, from the outset and throughout the duration of the custody order, the respondent has demonstrated positive compliance with the supervision requirement of her Leave of Absence Order.249 However, it is necessary to build more rapport to ensure the respondent continues to develop a trusting relationship with all formal services, including with the supervising officer.250 239 Ms Evans stated:251 Even when discussing her favourite hobbies such as swimming and gardening or her taste in music, she requires extensive encouragement to engage. To assist her reintegration and transition into the community, the goal is to gradually introduce difference topics of discussion including future planning, accommodation preferences and employment considerations. 240 The respondent has been able to comply with the remaining conditions of the custody order, specifically abstaining from illicit substance use and taking her prescribed medication, but this is due to the fact that the respondent is an inpatient. Ms Evans reported that, while the respondent has not previously been subject to community- based supervision, she has a significant history of poor compliance with Community Treatment Orders.252 241 Ms Evans said that ACC CLMI Services is of the belief the respondent may lack the capacity to abide by the strict conditions of a Community Supervision Order. She said this was corroborated by the respondent's disengagement from the weekly psychological sessions at the Frankland Centre, after the limiting term was imposed on 5 December 2024.253 242 When asked to explain that opinion, Ms Evans went on to explain:254 … it is a bit of … an unwillingness versus … a lack of capacity. There's been a history of poor compliance with community treatment orders, and … there is evidence of TTR saying she … is not willing to continue with medication, or attending mental health for … treatment. 249 Exhibit 4, page 528. 250 Exhibit 4, page 528. 251 Exhibit 4, page 528. 252 Exhibit 4, page 529. 253 Exhibit 4, page 529. 254 ts 38. -- 79 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 80 So … there are concerns that she may lack … the capacity to understand … the importance … of those conditions, of complying with mental health treatment and – compared to complying with … a substance - urinalysis test are equally as important as each other, and that … to function in the community, she would need to continue with that mental health treatment. 243 In respect of the respondent's ability to comply, counsel for the respondent confirmed with Ms Evans that, while at the Frankland Centre, the respondent has been compliant. Further, in terms of her behaviour, there have need no recorded incidents, either at the Frankland Centre or whilst on leave escorted by family members or Frankland Staff.255 244 Ms Evans reported that the respondent's primary motivator appears to be to reintegrate into the community and spend more time with her family. The respondent remains hopeful she will be discharged from the custody order. 245 Ms Evans concluded in the report that, in the event the respondent is considered suitable for a CSO, she would be immediately released from the Frankland Centre into the community. SFMHS had confirmed with Ms Evans that, were that to happen, that service would 'enforce the Mental Health Act 2014' and the respondent would become an involuntary patient under that Act. 246 Ms Evans explained:256 Ms [TTR] would no longer be eligible to remain a patient at the Frankland Centre due to the forensic criteria. SFMHS and Dr Petch agree there would be no other hospital that would understand the significant risk and would likely discharge her from their care prematurely. 247 Ms Evans further concluded that, in the event that the respondent is considered suitable for an ECO, the current conditions remain suitable to monitor and mitigate her ongoing risk factors. 248 At the hearing, Ms Evans explained that there had been some updates since the report was prepared. A stakeholder meeting was held on 8 December 2025 and was conducted by SFMHS. The meeting was conducted following the change of the treating team, as an 'overview of 255 ts 38. 256 Exhibit 4, page 535. -- 80 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 81 everything that had occurred up and to that point'.257 The treating team wanted to meet with the respondent's family to discuss the expectation from that point in time before considering any further leave of absence with the family, whether that be on the ground or in the community. 249 Ms Evans also stated that, at the meeting, the treating team was 'of a very similar view [as] Dr Petch's report'.258 250 When asked about a transitional plan for the respondent, Ms Evans stated:259 [The transitional plan] has been ongoing since TTR was moved … from custody to hospital. So, the transitional plan can be broken down into many different stages: as simple as custody to hospital, hospital to community, or even more specific, as escorted leave with staff, to escorted leave with family on the grounds, … and then moving from the grounds to community as well. So, the transitional plan is … in process, and will continue to change and be dynamic as the circumstances change as well. 251 Ms Evans said that, while the treating team waited to 'connect with the family', the respondent had escorted access to the grounds with staff, twice daily, for thirty minute walks, and she also had escorted community access with staff, including the swimming group, the walking group and a one-off instance of going to the zoo as well.260 252 In cross-examination, Ms Evans accepted it was possible that the respondent was only accessing the community on a fortnightly basis. However, she had not received any further update from the treating team about that matter.261 253 When asked in cross-examination about the respondent's ability to comply and her supervision restrictions, Ms Evans agreed that there is some evidence that suggests the respondent is capable of complying with conditions in the community. She agreed the respondent had indicated to her in conversation that she would comply with conditions, that she would continue with her treatment, and that she would abide by the restrictions of a curfew or electronic monitoring.262 257 ts 35. 258 ts 35. 259 ts 36. 260 ts 36. 261 ts 40. 262 ts 39. -- 81 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 82 NDIS funding available to the respondent 254 The respondent has a current NDIS support plan dated 31 July 2025 to 30 July 2026. The funding components include behaviour support, improved daily living skills, support coordination, psychosocial recovery coaches and core supports for assistance with daily life. Integrated Support Solutions was engaged to provide the respondent with specialist support coordination. However, Ms Evans reported that on 17 October 2025 the provider confirmed that the respondent had not yet been provided with the opportunity to engage with the funded supports in place through the NDIS. The NDIS supports will ultimately commence once the respondent has stabilised, as she has continued to present as psychiatrically unwell. Once she has stabilised, the SFMHS will contact Integrated Support Solutions to develop a plan to commence an NDIS integration.263 Guardianship and Administration orders 255 The respondent was first made subject to an administration order on 8 September 2021, when her father was appointed as a plenary administrator. On 6 September 2023, the order was amended to appoint her uncle as a limited guardian. These orders were due to be reviewed in September 2025. 256 In her report, Ms Evans outlined a chronology in relation to the respondent's Guardianship Orders as follows:264 On 22 November 2024, SFMHS made an application to seek a review of [the respondent's] Guardianship and Administration Orders. It is reported the intention of this review was to seek oversight from the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) to allow [the respondent] to have access to additional supports in the community, including NDIS funded supports and supported accommodation. On 09 April 2025, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) reviewed [the respondent's] case. The Guardianship Order was amended to appoint a guardian from OPA as a 'limited guardian' specifically for accommodation related decisions. Her uncle remained as a 'limited guardian' for the remaining functions. On 03 July 2025 SFMHS submitted a further request for a review of the Guardianship and Administration Orders, as the concerns remained ongoing. As per the Psychiatric Report for The Tribunal dated 03 July 2025 authored by Forensic Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Katinka Morton, 263 Exhibit 4, page 529. 264 Exhibit 4, pages 529 - 530. -- 82 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 83 these concerns included being denied 'very basic access to information, for example they continue to refuse to provide documentation allowing us to access [the respondent's] previous school records. The treating teams have been seeking this access for eighteen months'. Additionally, the Psychiatric Report authored by Dr Petch provides further overview of these concerns. On 05 November 2025, the SAT reviewed [the respondent's] case and determined she is 'unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgements in respect of matters relating to all of her estate; in need of an administrator of her estate; incapable of looking after her own health and safety; unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of matters relating to her person; in need of oversight, care or control for the protection of others; and in need of a guardian'. 257 Both of the previous orders were revoked and the SAT appointed the Public Trustee as plenary administrator, in place of the respondent's father, and the Public Advocate as a limited guardian, in place of her uncle. Both orders are due to be reviewed in November 2027. Accommodation 258 In relation to the availability of accommodation to the respondent, Ms Evans reported:265 ACC-CLMI Services completed an Accommodation Assessment to assess the suitability should the Court decide to impose a CSO. On 21 October 2025, ACC-CLMI Services attended [a specified address], this property is lived in and owned by [the respondent's] paternal aunt. She expressed a willingness to allow [the respondent] to reside with her should she be placed on a CSO. The property is located within the [specified suburb] ACC catchment area, which is accessible via vehicle transport offered by [the respondent's aunt] or public transport. [The respondent] and her family stated this accommodation would be a short-term solution, and Supported Independent Living (SIL) may be more appropriate for her long-term psychiatric needs, should NDIS funding allow. [The respondent's aunt] presented with an understanding of [the respondent's] forensic and psychiatric history, communicating her commitment to supporting her niece. Whilst acknowledging [the respondent] does not wish to continue her psychiatric medication regime, [the respondent's aunt] is of the belief she would comply with any Order conditions. [The respondent's aunt] confirmed her willingness to accept assistance and guidance from formal stakeholders, such as ACC-CLMI Services, Community/State Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS) and the NDIS funded services. ACC-CLMI Services established contact with the guardian at 265 Exhibit 4, page 531. -- 83 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 84 OPA on 20 October 2025. They were advised the address was deemed suitable, should [the respondent] be placed on a CSO. Family supports 259 In relation to familial support available to the respondent, Ms Evans reported that the respondent maintains strong family relationships with her father, paternal aunt, maternal uncle and brother. As mentioned above, she has articulated her primary motivator is to reintegrate into the community and connect with her family. ACC CLMI Services are of the belief that the respondent's family would continue to support her to the best of their ability, regardless of the outcome of the current proceedings before the court, and would further be willing to support any decisions made by the treating team, as long as they believe it will benefit the respondent and the reasons were clearly explained to them.266 260 Ms Evans further stated in her report:267 The family articulated to ACC-CLMI Services … they agree [the respondent] should not be provided unsupervised access to the community at this juncture. They understand the requirement of an extensive risk assessment, however, are concerned she may refuse to engage due to the current lack of freedoms and limited access to family. Her uncle suggested any transitional plan should include options for [the respondent] to be collected by Police and taken to a mental health service, should she become unwell. It is reported [the respondent] continues to have regular visits and telephone contact with her family. 261 It is apt to note that the family's attitude evident from that communication is in contrast to the attitudes expressed to the clinical team in the past that a risk assessment was not necessary. If the views expressed to ACC CLMI Services are genuine, that is a positive development. Contact with the victim of the index offence 262 A condition of the respondent's current Leave of Absence order stipulates that she is 'to have no direct or indirect contact with the victim'. Ms Evans refers to the report of the Victim Engagement Unit (VEU) dated 22 February 2024, which states that contact was established with the husband of the victim, who is also the respondent's father. He indicated that the victim remains traumatised by the index offence and may not want to discuss the matter. At the time of 266 Exhibit 4, page 531. 267 Exhibit 4, page 532. -- 84 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 85 preparing the VEU report, further contact had not been established and the victim's view on protective conditions remained unknown.268 Liaison with VEU in July 2025 and October 2025 confirmed all subsequent attempts to contact the victim, and her family, have been unsuccessful.269 263 On 29 August 2025, the respondent asked Ms Evans when she would be able to speak with the victim again. The VEU process was explained to her again, and she indicated that she understood. This was the first time the respondent had spoken about the victim with Ms Evans. Victim's submission 264 As I noted at [77] above, the court received a submission from the victim of the index offence, the respondent's mother, Ms N. As I stated there, while the submission does not make a submission directly about the impact on the victim if the respondent were to be released, Ms N does not submit that there would be any adverse impact. The submission largely deals with Ms N's history with the respondent, the difficulty she had experienced in dealing with the respondent's illness and trying to get appropriate treatment for her, and the way in which the system has dealt with the respondent since she has been in custody. Ms N says that she understands the severity of the respondent's illness, and her need for ongoing help and support. It is implicit in Ms N's description of her despair in respect of the situation in which the respondent finds herself, that she wants the respondent to receive appropriate treatment, to be able to have greater access to her family and the community, and to progress towards being released into the community. 265 I have had regard to Ms N's submission. Ultimately, however, it does not provide information that affects the issues I need to determine under s 110(3) of the CLMI Act. Applicant's Submissions 266 The applicant contended that that the court would likely be satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that, to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence, it is necessary to make an ECO. 268 Exhibit 4, page 532. 269 Exhibit 4, page 532 -- 85 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 86 267 The applicant submitted that respondent's poor personal boundaries, vulnerability and disinhibited behaviours place her at risk of exploitation and adverse outcomes. The applicant pointed to the fact that the respondent's current risk factors have been reported to include irritability and aggression, reducing her communication and engagement with staff, and non-compliance with medication. The applicant submitted further that reintegration and rehabilitative measures are required to mitigate risk. 268 The applicant submitted that, given the breach of a condition of the respondent's leave of absence order, ongoing interagency meetings would be required to develop release plans, a support network and risk management strategies for the Respondent prior to her being considered for any further release into the community 269 The applicant submitted that, if the respondent is released unconditionally into the community, there would be no basis for the ongoing involvement of the CCO, so she would not be subject to the oversight of a supervising CCO. 270 It was submitted that, whilst the respondent does not have a prior criminal history, there is medical evidence referring to the Respondent's past risk behaviours which have often occurred when the Respondent has been non-compliant with her medication and/or has consumed illicit substances. 271 It was submitted that the Respondent has been assessed as a moderate to high risk of future violence which would increase with non-adherence to psychiatric treatment and poor engagement with supervision. The applicant referred to the risk factors that have been identified. In the applicant's submission, it is significant that the respondent continues to demonstrate a lack of insight about her mental condition and also the need for psychiatric treatment. 272 The applicant submitted that the respondent's difficulty in communicating meaningfully about her internal experiences and perceptions at the time of the index offence and currently has meant that medical experts cannot ascertain precisely why or when the respondent will act dangerously, whether she is committed to receiving ongoing treatment and whether she is committed to preventing a recurrence of her dangerous behaviours. 273 The applicant submitted that, based on the evidence of Dr Petch, the respondent is still in the early stages of rehabilitation and is still in -- 86 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 87 need of the structured environment of a psychiatric hospital and assertive care management to monitor her mental state and medication adherence. 274 The applicant submitted on the basis of Dr Petch's evidence that a period of 4 years would be appropriate for an ECO. Respondent's Submissions 275 Although the respondent's submissions did not close off the possibility that a CSO might be considered, they were mainly directed to the issue of the duration of an ECO, as it was acknowledged that Dr Petch's evidence militated against release on a CSO at this time. 276 The respondent noted that, contrary to the views of previous treating teams, Dr Petch was of the opinion that an accurate risk assessment can be made of the respondent's, but that the lack of information escalates the risk. It was submitted that, once more information comes to light the risk may reduce or might rise depending on what is revealed. 277 The respondent submitted that, in assessing the risk, although the offending and resulting injuries were serious, the respondent's actions were not sustained. They were 'spontaneous, seemingly motiveless and came out nowhere', and the respondent was likely psychotic at the time of the offence. It was noted that the respondent stopped and immediately expressed remorse for her actions. 278 The respondent referred to Dr Petch's evidence about the paucity of information about the genesis of the index offence. 279 It was pointed out that, during psychiatric reviews, the respondent has denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation and has not been aggressive to staff or patients. There was no evidence of violent attitudes. 280 The respondent submitted that, while the protection of the community is the paramount consideration, it is not the only consideration. 281 It was submitted that it is a relevant consideration to these proceedings that the respondent is still a young woman with no previous period of incarceration. She has now spent five and a half years in custody. -- 87 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 88 282 It was submitted that the reports suggest that she there has been some gradual improvement in her mental health during her incarceration with reported improvement in engagement and interactions with family and some staff. 283 It was submitted that it is a relevant consideration that there have been no significant fluctuations in the respondent's state. 284 It was submitted that the respondent has a supportive family who have continued to support her throughout previous psychiatric admissions and since the offending. 285 The respondent submitted that if the criteria are met, then there is the option to look at a community supervision order to see whether that would ensure the protection of the community. The respondent submitted that if a community supervision order is in place along with a community treatment order, there can be conditions in the community supervision order to comply with treatment requirements. That can be monitored. If there are any issues with that, then it can be referred to the court. 286 It was noted that the respondent has already spent five and a half years in custody since the offence. It was submitted that a further term of four years, as proposed by the State, would be to effectively reinstate the limiting term again. 287 Finally, the respondent submitted that there is a concern that the treating team might regard the term of an ECO as the timeframe to work towards to get the respondent to a point where she may be able to be reintegrated into the community. In other words, it was submitted that, the longer the period, the longer the timeframe the team might work towards, rather than endeavouring to achieve a reintegration plan at an earlier time. It was submitted this should be taken into account in determining the period of an ECO if the court is satisfied such an order is necessary. Conclusions Findings 288 My determination of the issues in this case depends necessarily on my assessment of the evidence of Dr Petch. The purpose of a statutory obligation to have a person assessed by an expert who is then to provide a report to the court is to enable the court to have expert guidance on -- 88 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 89 matters pertaining to the assessment of risk. I am also mindful of the general principles concerning expert evidence. Where the witness is clearly qualified as an expert in the subject under consideration, the court should rely on the expert evidence unless there is good reason, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, for not doing so. 289 Subject to any reservations I have expressed in outlining the evidence of Dr Petch, I am satisfied that his evidence, both in his report and his oral testimony, is cogent and acceptable in respect of all of the matters he addressed. Dr Petch provided very detailed explanations for his opinions, which I have set out substantially above. I am satisfied that he approached his assessment in an objective manner. There were some matters in respect of which he did not agree with the approach of the clinical team, and he was sympathetic to the respondent's concerns about aspects of her treatment and the way in which leave of absence orders had been dealt with. 290 I accept the opinions expressed by Dr Petch, for the reasons he gave, as set out at [182] - [218], [223], [228] and [230] - [231] above, in respect of the respondent's mental illness, her risk of committing a serious violent offence if she is not subject to restrictions, and why a CSO would not provide adequate protection against that risk at this stage. 291 It was not in issue in these proceedings that the respondent stabbed her mother. While her behaviour and statements immediately after the stabbing suggest that she regretted what she had done, she has never explained why she stabbed her mother. For the reasons given by Dr Petch I am satisfied that the respondent's illness played a role in the incident, and that she was likely psychotic at the time. The respondent is not to be dealt with on the basis that she had an intention to kill her mother, or indeed to cause any particular form of injury, but having regard to the nature of the stabbing, and in the absence of any explanation from her, the only reasonable inference is that the respondent deliberately targeted her mother's back in the chest area with a knife that was capable of causing a lethal injury. She was prepared to use that degree of violence. 292 While Dr Petch did not give any weight to prior reported statements of the respondent that she had homicidal ideations, including some six months prior to the index offence, I consider that reports by professional mental health practitioners that recorded such statements should be taken at face value. It would be remarkable if the term -- 89 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 90 'homicidal ideation' was used if what the respondent had described as her thought processes on those prior occasions were less than thoughts about killing people, even if the thoughts were not directed to any particular person. The point is that, in my opinion, the history of homicidal ideation is an additional factor, to be taken into account with the factors referred to by Dr Petch, in determining if the there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious violent offence. That is so irrespective of whether she had homicidal ideation when she attacked her mother. It has been an aspect of her psychotic symptoms in the past. As psychosis is likely to have played a role in her stabbing her mother, the possibility of future homicidal ideation cannot be ignored, in my view, as a factor going to the level of her risk and the danger to the community. 293 I am satisfied, on the basis of Dr Petch's evidence, that the persons who are likely to be at risk of serious violence from the respondent are family members in respect of whom she may develop animus in a state of irritability or because she is not getting her way, or other persons who are caring for the respondent in respect of whom she may develop such feelings. I respectfully agree with Dr Petch's opinion that the uncertainty attending the respondent's actions in stabbing her mother, and the unpredictability of her actions on that occasion, heightens the risk of future violent offending. 294 I am satisfied on the basis of the risk assessment conducted by Dr Petch using the HCR-20v3 and his clinical judgment, having regard to all the evidence, that the risk that the respondent will commit a serious violent offence is significant. 295 I am also satisfied that, despite some progress in the respondent's cognitive functioning, she has not made any significant progress in respect of the psychotic aspect of her schizophrenia. That is due in significant measure to the treatment resistant nature of her schizophrenia, but it is also due to the respondent's failure to engage in treatment that might assist to mitigate the illness in combination with medication. Importantly, the respondent has not engaged meaningfully with psychological treatment. The fact that she disengaged from such treatment is also relevant to the question of whether the respondent is likely to comply with conditions, including that she undergo treatment, if she were on a CSO. 296 I accept Dr Petch's opinion that the respondent is still at an early stage of her treatment, despite the time that has elapsed since she was -- 90 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 91 arrested, and since the custody order was made. She has continued to experience psychotic symptoms. 297 Apart from the potential to decompensate further if released into the community, the respondent would be vulnerable to exploitation, which could accelerate the decompensation, especially if she returned to drug use. 298 The respondent's problematic compliance with her medication regimen may have played a role in the lack of significant progress in her treatment. Having regard to all the evidence, I am not satisfied that she has adequate insight into her mental illness and her risk of violent offending, or that she would be compliant with taking the medication necessary to treat her illness if she does not remain in a custodial and highly monitored environment. 299 Further, while the respondent has been in remission in respect of her illicit drug use, she has a number of risk factors in respect of problems with stress, coping and consequential thinking that would put her at risk of relapse if she had to contend with the stresses of being in the community, especially if that was without intensive support. Illicit drug use is likely to exacerbate her psychotic symptoms. 300 In any event, there are no measures in place at this stage that would enable the respondent to reintegrate into the community in a manner that would adequately mitigate the risk she poses to the community of committing a serious offence. An adequate reintegration plan has not been developed. That is in large part due to the respondent's failure to engage with psychological treatment, which was intended in part to address issues that would be relevant to developing a collaborative plan. The respondent has also failed to engage meaningfully with occupational therapy. Her plans for the future are somewhat amorphous. While she has spoken about starting a landscaping business, which would tap into her interest in gardening, there is no evidence to indicate that she would have any capacity to do so. The respondent has worked in the past, but it is not clear what impact her mental illness would have on her capacity to work in any capacity at this time. 301 I also accept the evidence of Dr Petch that, even if it were appropriate for the respondent to be released into the community, which he does not thin is the case, the respondent would need considerably -- 91 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 92 more support in the community than will be provided by the current funding she has available through the NDIS. 302 In terms of other supports, while I understand the frustrations that the respondent's family have felt at times, I am not satisfied that they have a proper understanding of the respondent's risk and the need for continuing intensive treatment and monitoring, which I am satisfied is necessary. Without proper insight into the respondent's risk, I am not satisfied they would be able to provide the sort of support that would be necessary to adequately mitigate the respondent's risk of committing a serious violent offence in the community. Is there an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? 303 For the reasons I have outlined above, and having regard to all of the evidence I have outlined, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence, being a serious and potentially lethal violent offence, if she is not subject to an appropriate form of restriction. 304 The risk is unacceptable both because of the level of the risk while the respondent continues to suffer psychosis as part of her mental illness of schizophrenia, and because of the catastrophic harm that would be likely to be caused to any victim. Is an ECO necessary? 305 I am satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk, an ECO is necessary at this stage. 306 Without repeating the explanations given by Dr Petch, I am satisfied for the explanations that he gave, and the findings I have outlined above, that a CSO would not provide adequate protection of the community. The absence of a suitable release plan is an obvious obstacle. However, that could have been dealt with by an adjournment and directions for the preparation of such a plan if the court considered that the respondent's risk could be adequately managed in the community. For the reasons given by Dr Petch, I am not satisfied that it could. I accept Dr Petch's opinion that the respondent is not likely to comply with all the conditions of a CSO that would be necessary to mitigate her risk. While she has engaged with her supervising officer, Ms Evans, in a custodial setting, that is a very different scenario from being in the community and being allowed a degree of independence. -- 92 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 93 The very significant matter in respect of which the respondent has not been forthcoming in interviews has been her mental functioning. The records show that the respondent had been more forthcoming about such matters in the past before the index offence. However, that has not been the case while she has been in custody. There may be reasons connected to the impact of her psychosis, but it remains the case that her psychotic state remains elusive to analysis. While she remains reticent about discussing her thinking, including any psychotic symptoms she may be experiencing, any engagement with supervision and psychological treatment in the community could not meaningfully allow for proper monitoring and management of her risk. 307 I am satisfied at this stage that the custodial environment is the only environment that will allow for the adequate protection of the community. 308 In coming to that conclusion, I have not taken into account the breaches that have been identified in respect of the leave of absence orders. In my view, there is no evidence on which those breaches, which were ostensibly due to the conduct of escorting persons, could be attributable to the respondent. Period of the ECO 309 I am satisfied on the basis of Dr Petch's evidence that a period of four years is appropriate for the ECO. It is clear from his evidence that a significant number of years may be required for the respondent to be treated to a point where her risk could be managed adequately subject to a CSO. 310 I have had regard to the submissions made on the respondent's behalf concerning the potential for those who are treating and managing the respondent to take an approach that would defer intensive work for reintegration until late in the term of the ECO. I do not share that concern, because it is to be expected, consistently with the objectives of the CLMI Act, in particular that the respondent's right to liberty should be subject to least restriction that is necessary to provide adequate protection of the community, that every step will be taken to enable the respondent to progress in her treatment and the development of an integration plan in a timely way. That expectation will be at the forefront of the court's consideration at each of the annual reviews of the ECO. If during the period of 4 years the respondent's situation improves to the point that a CSO will provide adequate protection of the community, then the ECO will be cancelled and a CSO will be -- 93 of 94 -- [2026] WASC 152 FIANNACA J Page 94 made. If, approaching the end of the period of the ECO it becomes apparent that a further ECO is required, the applicant can make another application for such an order. Disposition 311 For the reasons I have given, I will make an ECO for a period of four years commencing on 24 April 2026. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. GP Associate to the Honourable Justice Fiannaca 28 APRIL 2026 -- 94 of 94 --