R [2026] WASAT 43

[2026] WASAT 43 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : R [2026] WASAT 43 MEMBER : DR E MARILLIER, SENIOR MEMBER HEARD : 21 APRIL 2026 DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2026 PUBLISHED : 1 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : GAA 728 of 2026 R Represented Person Catchwords: Revocation or lapsing of community treatment order under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) not equivalent to a finding of capacity under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) - Restrictions on communication with family members under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) - Ongoing need for a guardian - Trial of independent management of income with ongoing oversight by administrator as a step towards possible revocation - Opportunity to develop and demonstrate capacity Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 84 Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) -- 1 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 2 Result: Private limited guardian re-appointed Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator with authorisation for a trial of independent management Category: B Representation: Counsel: Represented Person : In person Solicitors: Represented Person : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Nil -- 2 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: (These reasons were delivered orally on 24 April 2026 after a hearing on 21 April 2026 at which the decision was reserved. No parties attended the delivery of reasons, so the reasons are being published to provide a record to them. The reasons have been anonymised for party and witness confidentiality). 1 These are the reasons of the Tribunal in matter GAA 728 of 2026. This is a periodic review under s 84 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) of the orders in place for R, a proud aboriginal man who will turn 60 later this year. Background 2 I have been involved in reviewing orders for R since 2021. In 2022 I appointed his brother C as his limited guardian for a number of functions alongside the Public Advocate as his limited guardian for services. In 2023 I was able to appoint C as the limited guardian for all the necessary guardianship functions for R. I made no change on an application for review that I heard in 2024. The Public Trustee has been appointed as the plenary administrator for R since September 2020, at which time the Public Advocate was first appointed as his limited guardian. Back in 2011-2012 an application for the appointment of an administrator was dismissed. Principles to be observed 3 In making my decision, I am mindful of the principles set out in s 4 GA Act: • My primary concern is the best interests of R; • R is presumed to be capable of looking after his own health and safety; of making reasonable judgments in matters relating to his person; of managing his own affairs; and of making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal; • A guardianship of administration order may not be made where there is an alternative means of meeting R's needs that is less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action; • Where an order is made, it must be in terms that impose the least restrictions on R's freedom of decision and action; and -- 3 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 4 • I must seek to ascertain, as far as possible, the views and wishes of R. What the Tribunal must be satsified of 4 Before appointing an administrator, I must first be satisfied that R is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.1 5 I must also be satisfied that R is in need of an administrator.2 6 Before appointing a guardian, I must be satisfied that R is: (i) incapable of looking after his own health and safety; (ii) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or (iii) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others.3 7 In addition, I must be satisfied that R is in need of a guardian.4 Mental Disability/capacity 8 R has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. On the evidence of psychiatrist Dr V of Community Mental Health Service in 2020 that condition was considered progressive and had already progressed to the point where R was thought to be unable to manage a budget or pay bills. He had not been able to organise Centrelink payments without assistance. R was noted to be chronically homeless and at that point not able to understand legal matters. He was also found not to have capacity to make medical treatment, accommodation and services decisions. R was having difficulties making decisions around medical treatment including not seeking regular medical follow-up, living on the streets for a number of years, unable to secure accommodation and refusing assistance to find housing. 9 The most recent medical evidence filed with the Tribunal is from psychiatrist Dr B at the Community Mental Health Service on 18 March 2026. He notes that the previous psychiatrist Dr K has now retired. He confirms the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder 1 GA Act s 64(1)(a). 2 Ibid s 64(1)(b). 3 Ibid s 43(1)(b). 4 Ibid s 43(1)(c). -- 4 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 5 dating back to September 2009. Dr B considers the condition to be static. He has a similar view to that held by Dr V in 2020 of R's capacity. 10 This is at odds with R's view that he is doing well. C also expresses the view that R is doing much better since he secured Department of Housing accommodation of his own about two years ago. C and R explained to me that this was due to R's previous application reaching the point on the list where it was his turn to be allocated housing. C says it was not as a consequence of C being the guardian. 11 R had been under a community treatment order (CTO) since his discharge from hospital in early 2025. R let me know that this has recently been revoked (or lapsed). He was unsure whether or not he was meant to be continuing to have depot medication. He was also unsure whether he was meant to be having any follow-up through the community mental health service or with his GP. R's view was that the revocation of the CTO meant that the Tribunal should find that he has capacity and revoke the Tribunal's appointment of a guardian and an administrator. I note that the tests for whether a mental health patient undergoes treatment as a voluntary or involuntary patient are different from the tests for whether or not a person needs a guardian or administrator. 12 C was also unsure about what the plan was for R's ongoing treatment. He indicated that he felt the community mental health service should have provided him with clearer information. 13 At C's suggestion I contacted the case manager A who had also provided a written report to the Tribunal. A's report suggested there were currently strained or fractured relationships within the family (including with C), and that R continued to have impaired insight, poor impulse control and fluctuating mental state. A expressed the view that there was an ongoing need for a guardian and administrator. The report had been written prior to the lapsing of the CTO. 14 A had sent an update email at the request of the Public Advocate's Investigator. This indicated that R has in fact been relatively stable while he is compliant with medication but noted that he is quite inconsistent in his attendance. R will come to the clinic, but he is unlikely to attend at the time scheduled. -- 5 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 6 15 I note that there is consistent evidence on the file dating back to 2024 in similar terms. Community Corrections found that R would attend weekly appointments with them on his own. R had stated that he did recall the appointments without reminding. He just needs to know that he has to attend, for example, on Tuesdays at lunchtime and will come between 11.30 am and about 1.00 pm. At that time in 2024, and still now, R has no phone and that makes it difficult for him to receive reminders. 16 A indicated that he is happy to provide prompts to R and that it is very helpful for there to be a guardian because he requires the assistance of a middleman or intermediary as it were to support R in community and in being compliant with the depot. The depot medication that R is now on only requires provision once every six months. A informed parties that it is next due on 27 May in approximately one month. I note that C stated that he has found A is very good at talking everything through with him. 17 A indicated that if C is not appointed as the guardian the community mental health service and he personally will be much more restricted in what they can communicate to C. Under the terms of the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), it would require that there was a severe risk to R before they could do this without R's consent. If I do not reappoint C as the guardian, the mental health service may not be able to communicate with C regarding the ongoing maintenance depot. 18 The evidence before the Tribunal in discharge summaries is that the relapses and hospitalisation with psychosis that have occurred periodically in the last five years (and in fact there have been 21 hospitalisations since 2009) are usually occurring at times where R has not had his regular medication and/or that there has been substance abuse. Consideration - Guardianship 19 I am satisfied and I find that R has a formal diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. I am satisfied and I find that as a consequence of that disorder R has an impaired ability to retain and recall appointments. R himself has told me today at the hearing that he was unsure whether or not he continued to require medication. He indicated that he is very willing to continue having his depot. He also indicated that he just needs somebody that can tell him when he needs to have it. I am satisfied and I find that there is an ongoing need for a guardian to be appointed for medical treatment and services because R has -- 6 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 7 a chronic illness which when well-managed allows him to function well in his own and his brother's eyes. His appearance and demeanour at the hearing did indicate that he is doing much better at the moment than he has at times in the past, as was evident both from appearances at the Tribunal and from the medical and service provider evidence filed with the Tribunal. I understand that R feels that as adult man it is inappropriate that he have a guardian or an administrator. I find that his lack of insight into the need for medication and his vulnerability in terms of organisational skills to keep track of when he needs to re-attend mean that it is a risk to his health and safety if I do not continue the limited appointment of his brother. 20 I accept the evidence of C and R that in regard to accommodation R now has his own place and he is managing with informal support from family to maintain that tenancy and has done for the last couple of years since he was released from prison. C has expressed the view that he does not need to be the guardian for accommodation to advocate for R with the Department of Housing if that became necessary. I accept that evidence and I note that if I am wrong, and there is a need for an accommodation guardian, C is well-placed to bring that application before the Tribunal. I accept the evidence of C and R that there has been no need for the legal functions which I conferred on C in 2022 and I will revoke those aspects of the order as well as the accommodation function. I do still hold the view that on the evidence before me today R remains in need of a limited guardian for medical treatment and services and I am satisfied that his brother remains a suitable person to act in that capacity. Consideration - Administration 21 In regard to administration the evidence from the Public Trustee is that R contacts them occasionally to request additional funds and that there has been ongoing contact with C about general well-being, forwarding of notices and purchase requests. R has a simple estate with the receipt of the disability support pension. The Public Trustee currently has organised for his rent and utilities bills to be paid, as well as ambulance insurance and a $50 per fortnight repayment of fines to the Fines Enforcement Registry. 22 R is managing an allowance of about $260 a week which I understand is split across Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. R told me that he would like to be in charge of his own finances and C expressed the view that with R doing so well at the moment it would -- 7 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 8 be appropriate to give him the opportunity to manage a greater proportion or in fact all of his Centrelink income with informal support from family. R in the alternative (if revocation was not my decision) indicated that he would like the opportunity to have a trial of independent management. C explained that if R had Centrepay set up for rent and utilities he was of the view that R would be able to budget for the other essentials. R told me that as a smoker it is difficult to budget his allowance for both food and cigarettes. I note that the Public Trustee also sets aside a certain amount on a regular basis to accumulate some savings to allow R to buy clothes from time to time. 23 All parties were in agreement that stable accommodation has been a very important part of R's improved health in the last two years. I am keen to structure my decision in a way that supports R's ongoing recovery and stable accommodation. I am concerned that where a person has had split payments for a considerable period of time going to a complete revocation just after a CTO has lapsed may expose that person to significant risk of being unable to budget for essentials (such as food, rent and utilities). In R's case the combination of his uncertainty about whether or not he was to continue on medication and if so from whom he would receive it, alongside the fact that his accommodation is so precious and so important to his ongoing well-being combine to convince me that he continues to be vulnerable in these critical aspects of his ongoing optimal health. Given the medical evidence continues to be that R is affected by schizoaffective disorder which requires ongoing treatment and is vulnerable to relapse, I am satisfied and I find that it is currently premature to completely revoke the administration order. 24 However, I am persuaded by C and R that the improvement in R's condition appropriately would be recognised by an order which provides both a goal and hope. 25 R said to me towards the end of the hearing that 'a trial would be nice.' I took that to mean a trial of independent management of his income. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to make an order in those terms. Although I understand that R and C's wish was that I might revoke the entirety of both the administration and the guardianship order I do not find on the balance of the evidence that that would be in R's best interests and that must be my primary concern. 26 However, I am satisfied that with his level of improvement R now is in need of a much more limited guardianship order and it is -- 8 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 9 appropriate to make a relatively short administration order to be reviewed within a year with the approval for a trial of independent management of his Centrelink income after essentials are paid for. Those essentials which I will specify in the order are the Public Trustee fees and ambulance insurance. That means that the rent, utilities, food, clothing, and medication costs may all rest with R alongside maintaining the repayments to the Fines Enforcement Registry. 27 This will be however at the discretion of the trust manager. The trust manager will also have the discretion to terminate the trial if at any point they are no longer persuaded that it is in R's best interests on the basis of the evidence. That might be if there are important bills that are not paid or they find that R is contacting them often for funds as that would be symptomatic of him struggling to budget for essentials. For those reasons I made the following orders. Orders The Tribunal makes the following orders: 1. The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [R] is: (a) unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate; (b) in need of an administrator of his estate; (c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and (d) in need of a guardian. Administration 2. The administration order dated 2 May 2023 is revoked and substituted with the order below. 3. The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). 4. The administrator is, at their discretion, authorised to allow the represented person a trial of managing the balance of their -- 9 of 10 -- [2026] WASAT 43 Page 10 Centrelink income, after payment by the administrator of expenses they consider to be essential (including but not limited to ambulance insurance and Public Trustee fees). The administrator may terminate the trial if they form the view that it is no longer in the represented person's best interests. 5. The administration order is to be reviewed before 24 April 2027. Guardianship 6. The guardianship order dated 2 May 2023 is revoked and substituted with the order below. 7. [C] of [address suppressed] is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions: (a) to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA); and (b) to determine the services to which the represented person should have access. 8. The guardianship order is to be reviewed before 24 April 2027. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. DR E Marillier, SENIOR MEMBER 1 MAY 2026 -- 10 of 10 --