Crimes Mental Impairment consultation paper.pdf - Victorian Law ...

8
8.6 The Adult Parole Board reviewed all security patients and residents under Governor’s
pleasure orders on an annual basis to determine whether the person was suitable for
release. The Adult Parole Board would make a recommendation on whether to release
the person subject to the Governor’s pleasure order or continue to detain that person
until the next review. Recommendations were based on reports from the professional
staff responsible for the treatment and management of the person. People subject to
Governor’s pleasure orders had no right to appear before the Adult Parole Board, nor did
they have a right to appeal a decision of the Adult Parole Board. 2
8.7 If the Adult Parole Board made an initial recommendation for release, it forwarded this
recommendation to the Attorney-General, who then had to decide whether to agree
with the recommendation. If the Attorney-General agreed with the recommendation,
the Attorney-General referred the matter to Cabinet for discussion. If Cabinet approved
the recommendation at that stage, the Premier was to recommend the revocation of
the order to the Governor, who then signed a document revoking the order. The Adult
Parole Board continued to supervise the person for five years, with or without conditions.
Following this five-year period, the process was repeated and if successful, resulted in the
unconditional revocation of the Governor’s pleasure order.
Leave under the Governor’s pleasure system
8.8 Security patients and security residents could be granted a leave of absence under the
Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) or the Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986
(Vic). Grants of leave allowed the person subject to the Governor’s pleasure order to be
absent from the psychiatric inpatient service or residential institution for a duration of
time, subject to any conditions. The legislation generally did not specify the nature and
duration of leave.
8.9 The Chief Psychiatrist, in consultation with the Chief Psychiatrist’s advisory committee
(that included representatives from Victoria Police, Victims of Crimes Assistance League,
Forensic Health Service, the Adult Parole Board, the Correctional Services Division and the
Office of Public Advocate) generally made leave decisions for security patients. Security
patients had no right to appear before the Chief Psychiatrist’s advisory committee and the
chief psychiatrist generally did not attend. 3
8.10 The Mental Health Act required the Chief Psychiatrist to be satisfied on the evidence
available that the safety of members of the public would not be seriously endangered as a
result of the security patient’s leave of absence. The Mental Health Act also required that
the Chief Psychiatrist consult the Director-General of Corrections. Patients whose leave
applications were unsuccessful could seek review of the decision by the Mental Health
Review Board. However, it was unusual for the Mental Health Review Board to overturn
the Chief Psychiatrist’s decision. 4
8.11 The Minister for Health and Community Services’s delegate made leave decisions
for security residents under the Intellectually Disabled Person’s Services Act on the
recommendation of the Director-General of Corrections or the Intellectual Disability
Review Panel. The Minister’s decision was not reviewable. 5 Leave decisions for security
residents were also based on whether the safety of members of the public would be
seriously endangered as a result of the security resident’s leave of absence.
2 Community Development Committee, Parliament of Victoria, Inquiry into Persons Detained at the Governor’s Pleasure (1995) 96.
3 Ibid 70.
4 Ibid 69.
5 Ibid 72.
161