Section 32 Granted on Multiple Drug Offences

PW was charged with one count of ‘Supply prohibited drug’, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and two counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, namely methylamphetamine and gamma butyrolactone, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Chris Cole and Bill O’Brien represented PW in these matters. PW plead guilty to both counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, and the charge of ‘Supply prohibited drug’ was withdrawn.

A Section 32 Application was made and subsequently listed for Hearing at the Downing Centre Local Court. In support of the Application Bill O’Brien tendered extensive materials and made oral submissions on PW’s behalf.

Ultimately, Her Honour allowed PW’s matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system and dismissed the charges pursuant to s 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, upon the condition PW comply with a supervised treatment plan.  

This is a very pleasing result.

Section 32 Applied, Heard and Granted

GS was charged with two offences namely, ‘Intentionally or recklessly destroy/damage property’, contrary to section 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Unlawful entry on inclosed lands’, contrary to section 4(1)(b) Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901.

GS was diagnosed with First Episode Manic Psychosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder. His treating psychiatrist formed the opinion that he was in the midst of the first episode of his illness at the time of the offence. He was of the view that the offending behaviour was a direct consequence of the mental condition GS was suffering from.

GS made a section 32 application pursuant to Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 for his matter to be dealt with under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 instead of under the criminal justice system.

During section 32 Hearing, Chris Cole tendered materials on GS’s behalf including a medical report by GS’s treating Psychiatrist and a letter from a doctor in Mental Health Acute Care confirming they were supervising GS’s compliance with his treatment plan.

Her Honour accepted the treating psychologist’s expert opinion and accepted that GS was suffering from a mental illness, and that it was more appropriate that his matter be dealt with under the Mental Health Act than the criminal justice system.

Ultimately, the offences were dismissed, and GS was discharged upon entering a treatment plan for 6 months supervised by his doctor.

Charges Dismissed Under Section 32 ‘Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act

JS was charged with ‘Stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm’ contrary to section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Common Assault’ contrary to the Crimes Act 1900.

JS had unfortunately been attacked less than one month prior to his offence, triggering the exacerbation of his existing severe multiple mental health conditions.

James Castillo represented JS at the Downing Centre Local Court, making an application under section 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. James Castillo tendered materials from JS’ psychiatrist and occupational therapist, and made oral submissions on his behalf.   

His Honour accepted the application made by James Castillo, exercising his discretion under section 32(3) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. Ultimately, His Honour dismissed both on the condition that JS comply with the treatment plan proposed by his psychiatrist.

This was a great result for JS as both charges were dismissed and he was able to continue his psychiatric treatment.

Not Guilty Pursuant to Mental Health Act

AD was charged with ‘Wound person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm’, contrary to section 33(1) Crimes Act 1900; and ‘Reckless wounding’, contrary to section 35(4) Crimes Act 1900.

Chris Cole represented AD in these matters. AD was found not fit to plead or stand trial after having been assessed by both a clinical Neuropsychologist and a Forensic Psychiatrist. It was determined that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of offending with severe psychotic symptoms.

Subsequently, AD was found not guilty on the grounds of mental illness. This is a pleasing result considering the seriousness of the offence and allows AD to continue to access the psychological treatment he requires.