MAILES v DPP AND 1 OR [2006] NSWSC 267

MAILES v DPP AND 1 OR [2006] NSWSC 267

The Plaintiff was not presently a forensic patient because his continued detention was pursuant to Wood CJ at CL's interim order made under s24 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, and the definition of "forensic patient" requires present detention pursuant to an order under specified provisions which do not include s24. Once an order is made under s27, the Plaintiff will become a forensic patient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking a Declaration and Orders Concerning Forensic Patient Status Under Mental Health and Criminal Procedure Legislation / Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff was not presently a forensic patient, indicated that an order under s27 should be made detaining him in a place other than a hospital, and otherwise proposed that the summons be dismissed, with the proceedings stood over briefly for submissions on the form of orders.
Legal Topics
['forensic Patient Status' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'special Hearing' 'limiting Term' 'mental Health Review Tribunal Review' 'detention Under Mental Health (criminal Procedure) Act 1990']
['mental Health Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['forensic Patient Status' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'special Hearing' 'limiting Term' 'mental Health Review Tribunal Review' 'detention Under Mental Health (criminal Procedure) Act 1990']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Summons Seeking a Declaration and Orders Concerning Forensic Patient Status Under Mental Health and Criminal Procedure Legislation / Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff was presently a "forensic patient" within the Mental Health Act 1990 or the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 while detained under Wood CJ at CL\'s order made after the special hearing.' 'Whether detention pursuant to an order under s24 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 was sufficient to constitute the Plaintiff a forensic patient.' 'Whether the Court should make an order under s27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 for the Plaintiff to be detained in a place other than a hospital.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff was not presently a forensic patient because his continued detention was pursuant to Wood CJ at CL's interim order made under s24 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, and the definition of "forensic patient" requires present detention pursuant to an order under specified provisions which do not include s24. Once an order is made under s27, the Plaintiff will become a forensic patient.

Court Disposition

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff was not presently a forensic patient, indicated that an order under s27 should be made detaining him in a place other than a hospital, and otherwise proposed that the summons be dismissed, with the proceedings stood over briefly for submissions on the form of orders.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the Plaintiff is not presently a "forensic patient" within either the Mental Health Act, 1990 or the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.' 'Pursuant to s27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, Graham Edward Mailes be detained in a place other than a hospital.' 'Otherwise the summons...