Jersey Unreported Judgments

Manslaughter - application in accordance with the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016

[2021]JRC131

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 April 2021

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Charles Nisbet

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ANDREW CHARLES NISBET IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 65 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH (JERSEY) LAW 2016 AND/OR THE COURT'S INHERENT JURISDICTION

M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Defendant.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an application brought on behalf of Mr Nisbet for a variation of the treatment order imposed by the Court following his plea of guilty to manslaughter.  During the first part of the treatment order, if I may call it that, Mr Nisbet has been treated at Brockfield House but a place is now available, such as was always anticipated when the original treatment order was made, at St Andrew's Healthcare where Mr Nisbet can receive more focused and appropriate treatment.

2.        Advocate Boothman acting on Mr Nisbet's behalf has taken us through the provisions of Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 ("the Law") out of, what might be termed, an abundance of caution and we are satisfied that those provisions of Article 65 that might arguably apply to these circumstances have been appropriately met. 

3.        We have received evidence before us from Dr Hallett who co-authored a report with Dr Bisht.  They were the original experts in the sentencing case, and in the conclusion to that report which Dr Hallett maintains before us in oral evidence he says this:

"Mr Nisbet has a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome as part of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) with associated anxiety disorders and a probable mixed personality disorder.  In my opinion his Asperger's Syndrome requires specialist treatment in a hospital setting and although he has been receiving treatment in Brockfield House he does require more specialist treatment at St Andrew's Hospital.  This was the original purpose of his treatment order but the transfer to St Andrew's has been delayed considerably.

In my opinion Mr Nisbet requires long-term forensic rehabilitation.  Although this has begun at Brockfield House Mr Nisbet does require more specialist care in an Autism unit in conditions of medium security."

In the light of those unequivocal conclusions we are satisfied that the evidentiary threshold for us varying the order has been passed.

4.        A question has arisen as to the extent of the applicability of Article 65 and although I do not need to make a definitive determination on that, and indeed there has been no adversarial argument because Crown Advocate Maletroit for the Attorney General is largely in accord with Advocate Boothman's submissions on this point, it appears to me that Article 65 does not apply strictly to a variation of a treatment order in the same way that it does to the original imposition of the treatment order in the first place.  In particular, Article 65(3) does not seem to me to apply in circumstances where the applicant is already subject to a treatment order and receiving therapeutic care pursuant to that order.  This is a movement from one place to another and it does not seem to me that the time limits need to strictly apply or indeed that that particular circumstance is anticipated within the wording or Article 65(3) of the Law. 

5.        As to the rest, whereas it may not be strictly applicable, and I make no determination on that point, nonetheless the requirement for evidence, if the Court is to be moved in a particular direction must be an important one and it is appropriate that evidence of the form that we have heard today has been put before us. 

6.        It is quite clear that Mr Nisbet can receive the kind of treatment that he needs at the new placement at St Andrew's Healthcare and it appears to us to be in his interests that we make the order and there is no reason why we should not.  We have received a letter from the Crown supporting the position and, as I have indicated, Crown Advocate Maletroit was before us today in order to echo the points made in that letter.

7.        In all the circumstances we are satisfied that we should grant the application made by Mr Nisbet and accordingly we grant it and grant the variations to the treatment order and the restrictions such as the transfer to St Andrew's can go as smoothly and proceed at St Andrew's as if it were Brockfield.

8.        We make the order sought. 

Authorities

Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016