Attorney General of NSW v Dale Haines

2025/00396912

MENTAL HEALTH – Mr Dale Haines (the Respondent) is 44 years old and has been a forensic patient since 15 May 2017 – by Summons filed on 11 April 2025, the Attorney General for New South Wales (the Appellant) sought an order, pursuant to ss 121, 127(1)(a), and 128 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the Act), that the Respondent be subject to an order extending his status as a forensic patient for a period of two years from the date of the order – the primary judge dismissed the Summons, holding that the expert evidence did not support a conclusion, to a high degree of probability, that the Respondent poses an unacceptable risk of causing serious harm to others, and did not consider that the Appellant discharged its burden to also prove that the risk posed by the Respondent cannot be managed in a less restrictive manner – whether the primary judge erred in holding that “ordinarily” Court-appointed experts should be called to give oral evidence where they have a difference of opinion – whether the primary judge erred in placing weight on the fact that the Appellant did not call the Court-appointed experts to give oral evidence – whether the primary judge erred in his Honour’s approach to the statutory test in s 122(1)(b) of the Act when asking whether the risk posed by the Respondent “cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means,” in that it confined its attention to whether a particular less restrictive means (being a Community Treatment Order) was available under applicable legislation, without considering whether that alternative means was adequate to manage the Respondent's risk in light of evidence providing reason to doubt that the means would be implemented effectively or at all.