Section 32 Application Granted

KM was charged with ‘Stalk intimidate intend to cause fear of physical etc harm (domestic)’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

Christopher Cole acted for KM in her Section 32 Application. In support of the application, Chris made oral submissions and tendered various materials on KM’s behalf.

After careful consideration, Her Honour allowed the matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system, taking into account orders that KM engage with her psychologist and a proposed treatment plan for a period of 6 months.

This is a pleasing outcome for KM, as she is now able to move on from the charge and access appropriate treatment.

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 PW plead guilty to both counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, and the charge of ‘Supply prohibited drug’ was withdrawn.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.

Charged with seven offences including assault an officer and resist police, successful s 32 application

R v JB

JB was charged with seven offences including fail to leave premises, resist police, assault an officer in the execution of their duty and more.

The charges arose after JB attended a music festival and was denied entry due to intoxication.

Chris Cole represented JB and noted that a section 32 application pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act would be appropriate due to JB’s mental state at the time of offending.

Medical reports were obtained and the matter came before Her Honour Wynhausen at the Burwood Local Court. Her Honour accepted the application, and ordered JB to continue his mental health treatment plan as an alternative to a criminal conviction.

This was an excellent result for JB as he was able to maintain his clear criminal record, as well as access the medical services that he required.

Charged with larceny, avoids criminal conviction under the Mental Health Act

R v SB

SB was charged with two counts of ‘larceny’ contrary to section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900. Each count of larceny carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. The case against SB was strong, with multiple witness accounts and CCTV footage.

Bill O’Brien represented SB and the matter came before the Downing Center Local Court. A section 32 application was made pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. This section states that a presiding magistrate may sentence persons suffering from a mental illness or condition to treatment, rather than to a term of imprisonment.

The matter came before Magistrate Susan MckIntyre, who accepted the application and chose to dismiss the charges against SB and order her to continue her mental health treatment.

This was a fantastic result for SB, as she was very concerned about the impact that a criminal record would have on her business and career.