Apprehended Violence Application Det Richard Broome v Tony Liristis; R v Tony Liristis; R v Tony Liristis; Apprehended Violence Application NSW Police for Tares Jahshan v Tony Laristis [2011] NSWDC 40

Apprehended Violence Application Det Richard Broome v Tony Liristis; R v Tony Liristis; R v Tony Liristis; Apprehended Violence Application NSW Police for Tares Jahshan v Tony Laristis [2011] NSWDC 40

Because the offences involved serious conduct, planning, and sophistication inconsistent with the effects of the claimed mental illness, and because the psychiatric evidence did not sufficiently establish a nexus between the mental condition and the offending as found at trial, it was not appropriate to make orders under s.32. The application was refused and the matters are to be dealt with according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application Under S.32 of the Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Refused; Appeal Against Conviction and Apprehended Violence Order
Outcome
Application for order under s.32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 refused.
Legal Topics
['apprehended Violence Orders' 'mental Illness and Criminal Responsibility' 'section 32 Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act Applications']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health Law'] ['apprehended Violence Orders' 'mental Illness and Criminal Responsibility' 'section 32 Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act Applications']

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

Appeal / Application Under S.32 of the Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Refused; Appeal Against Conviction and Apprehended Violence Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be dealt with under s.32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 instead of in accordance with law in light of claimed mental illness' 'Whether there is an appropriate causal relationship between mental illness and the offences for the s.32 discretion to be exercised']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the offences involved serious conduct, planning, and sophistication inconsistent with the effects of the claimed mental illness, and because the psychiatric evidence did not sufficiently establish a nexus between the mental condition and the offending as found at trial, it was not appropriate to make orders under s.32. The application was refused and the matters are to be dealt with according to law.

Court Disposition

Application for order under s.32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for s.32 order refused; appeals against convictions and apprehended violence order to proceed according to law.']