A man found not guilty by mental impairment asked the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to release him from custody. Photo: Albert McKnight.
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) has refused to release a decision explaining why it would not allow a man, who had been found not guilty by mental impairment, to leave Canberra’s jail.
His name, offending and background were also not released.
Presidential Member Heidi Robinson and Senior Member Donald Byrne had to decide if they should publish the reasons, which would have been without the man’s name or identifying details, for why he had been told to remain in custody.
They said a court had found the man not guilty by reason of mental impairment and ordered him to be detained in custody until a review by ACAT.
At the following hearing, his lawyers asked for him to be released under certain conditions.
But the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist thought these conditions were neither clinically appropriate nor practical, and the man’s treating team wanted to arrange an alternative residential placement, arguing he should be detained until that was arranged.
His lawyers strongly opposed this, citing laws requiring his release unless exceptional circumstances justified his detention.
In January 2025, the tribunal decided the man would not be released as it could not be satisfied there was an appropriate place for him to be released to.
“The consequence of this decision was that the subject person, who has not been convicted of any criminal offence, was to remain incarcerated in the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) pending further review,” Presidential Member Robinson and Senior Member Byrne said.
They said the tribunal’s reasons were provided to the lawyers involved. They noted that the matter raised significant policy issues and questions of law regarding mental health and human rights legislation.
ACAT usually publishes its decisions, but the man’s lawyers and the ACT Public Advocate opposed this.
“They were also concerned that, given the particular circumstances of this case, the subject person may be identifiable even by a relatively vaguely written decision,” Presidential Member Robinson and Senior Member Byrne said.
“Of particular concern is that the published reasons consider the nature of the subject person’s offending, his background and his psychiatric condition.
“Many of the factual considerations that went to the tribunal’s ultimate decision are sufficiently unique that the subject person could be identified by reference to other, publicly available information.”
They did say they were “acutely aware that this is a matter of some public importance”.
But they ultimately said the reasons would not be published as the hearing was conducted in private, and the details of the case were so specific that it was impossible to meaningfully de-identify the decision.
The man was still at the AMC when their decision in July 2025 was made, although it was not published until late last week.
He had been scheduled to face another hearing on whether or not he should be released last year.
Why wouldn't they do a trial? Other places do it. And they aren't the Bush Capital and nor do they… View