R v Summers-Smith

1. [1]

   Mr David Summers-Smith (“the accused”) is charged with the murder of Royce Mallett (“the deceased”) on 8 July 2024 at Albury in the State of New South Wales, an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

2. [2]

   The accused stabbed Mr Mallett once to the chest as Mr Mallett was seated in the driver’s seat of a car. The result of that one act was both catastrophic and tragic.

3. [3]

   On 12 December 2025, the accused was arraigned in the Supreme Court at Sydney and entered a plea of not guilty.

4. [4]

   On that occasion, the Court was informed that the parties agreed, for the purposes of s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”), that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment pursuant to s 28 of the Act. Section 31 enables the Court to enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, if the Court is satisfied, after considering the proposed evidence, that the defence under s 28 is established.

5. [5]

   The matter proceeded before me today, the 28 April 2026, by way of hearing pursuant to s 31 of the Act. The Crown foreshadowed an intention to tender victim impact statements prepared by Ms Caitlin O’Keeffe, Mr Roy Mallett, and Mrs Felicity Mallett.

6. [6]

   Following the hearing I returned a verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, pursuant to s 31 of the Act.

7. [7]

   Following the return of the special verdict, but before the making of orders and directions, I received the victim impact statements pursuant to Subdivision 5 of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“CSPA”).

Victim impact statements

1. [8]

   Pursuant to s 30L(1) of the CSPA, the Court may only accept victim impact statements after a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible has been returned. The Court must acknowledge receipt of the victim impact statements: s 30L(2) of the CSPA.

2. [9]

   Further, the Court is required to provide a copy of the victim impact statements to the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable after making a decision that results in the accused becoming a “forensic patient” within the meaning of the Act: s 30N(4) of the CSPA.

3. [10]

   The Court acknowledges the deep distress and grief suffered by the deceased’s family members.

4. [11]

   Ms O’Keeffe is the partner of the deceased. She spoke of the devastation that the deceased’s death has wrought, not only on her, but also on their two young children. The strain upon their family has been immense, both emotionally and financially. She described the deceased as a loving father who played an active role in the children’s lives. She is now faced with having to raise their children alone, in the reality that her children will grow up without the guidance and support of their father. She expressed her wishes for the Court to understand that “his life mattered deeply”, and that the “impact of losing him is lifelong… It affects not just today, but every future moment that he should have been part of, and everyday moments that he’s already missed”.

5. [12]

   The Court acknowledges the devastating impact that the killing of Mr Mallett has had on his partner and children.

6. [13]

   The deceased’s father, Mr Mallett, and his mother, Mrs Mallett, also spoke of how the loss of their youngest son has changed their lives forever. To Mr Mallett, the deceased was not just a son, but his “best friend”. Mr Mallett shared with his son a lifelong hobby of building and competing in off road 4x4 competitions and events in Land Rovers around the UK. They enjoyed competing in events, camping and generally enjoying life together.

7. [14]

   Mr Mallett no longer participates in the recreational activities he once enjoyed with the deceased and struggles to find motivation to do anything.

8. [15]

   Mrs Mallett described her son as having a “cheeky smile” and a “brain wave of business ideas”. The family visit the grave site each birthday, Christmas, and 8th of July.

9. [16]

   Both she and her husband have been deeply affected by the fatal act committed by the accused. They are unable to comprehend why their son was killed and how the accused could have been in the community with a treatment resistant psychiatric illness.

10. [17]

    The Court acknowledges the loss and grief that the family continues to experience and extends its condolences to them.

The proceedings

1. [18]

   As recently observed in R v Lim [2026] NSWSC 378 at [13] (Muston J):

2. [19]

   As this was not a trial, reasons for verdict under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) are not required: R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293 at [17]-[18]; R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064 at [98]-[100]. However, having regard to the strong public interest in the community understanding the reasons for verdict on a serious charge, and in the interests of open justice, what follows are my reasons for my decision to return a special verdict under s 31.

The evidence

1. [20]

   A joint tender bundle was tendered and marked Exhibit A, which included the following:

   1. (1)

      Statement of Agreed Facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW);

   2. (2)

      Psychiatric report prepared by Dr Richard Furst, the expert retained by the accused, dated 22 February 2025; and

   3. (3)

      Two psychiatric reports prepared by Dr Kerri Eagle, the expert retained by the Crown, dated 8 August 2025 and 15 April 2026, respectively.

Agreed Facts

1. [21]

   The statement of agreed facts can be summarised as follows.

2. [22]

   On 8 July 2024, the accused (aged 29), in the car park of the Hume Inn Motel in Albury, stabbed the deceased (aged 30) to the chest, killing him.

3. [23]

   The accused and deceased were not known to one another. They were both staying at the Hume Inn Motel.

4. [24]

   The deceased was a British national, who was travelling around Australia on holiday with his best friend Carl Fisher. The two hired a Toyota Camry in Sydney on 12 May 2024. Along the way they met up with friends from England.

5. [25]

   The accused has a history of treatment resistant schizophrenia with psychotic symptoms. At the time that he killed the deceased, the accused was subject to a Community Treatment Order (“CTO”) which was due to expire on 27 July 2024.

6. [26]

   The accused arrived at the motel on Friday, 21 June 2024. On 3 July 2024, he moved rooms within the motel to room 33, located on the ground floor. During his time at the motel, he was observed on two separate occasions pacing outside his room, entering and exiting his room, and leaving and returning to the hotel frequently.

7. [27]

   The deceased and Carl Fisher were staying in room 10. They arrived on Friday, 5 July 2024. James and Nigel Durant, also friends of the deceased, were staying at the motel in room 11. Rooms 9, 10 and 11 are also located on the ground floor, on the other side of the car park from room 33.

8. [28]

   The agreed facts summarise in detail the events leading up to the killing of the deceased. It is relevant to note the following movements of the accused.

9. [29]

   At 9:47am, he attended Albury Police Station and requested to speak with the officer in charge about a historical matter that he had reported in late 2023. He was observed to be nervous and jittery. He later left the station and attended the Coles at West End Plaza.

10. [30]

    At 1:25pm, the accused took a photograph on his phone of the door at 545 Townsend Street, Albury.

11. [31]

    At 4:34pm, the accused attended Woolworths at Albury Central, where he bought some food items. At 4:42pm he attended the “House” store at West End Plaza and purchased a four pack of “Baccarat Gourmet Jumbo Steak Knives”.

12. [32]

    At 5:36pm, the deceased and Carl Fisher, who had spent the day driving around Albury, returned to the motel. Mr Fisher parked the Toyota Camry in the car space for room 9, and the two went inside their room. At around this time, the accused was captured on CCTV footage pacing outside his room.

13. [33]

    Mr Fisher later walked out to the Toyota Camry and sat in the driver’s seat of the car, where he drank beer and had a cigarette while watching videos on his phone.

14. [34]

    The moments leading up to and following the killing were captured by CCTV cameras.

15. [35]

    At 6:13pm, the accused was captured on CCTV leaving his room and walking across the carpark, with his right hand in his pocket.

16. [36]

    He walked under the carport outside of room 2 and looked at a Nissan Patrol, which had, until shortly beforehand, been occupied.

17. [37]

    He then walked back into the carpark and towards the Camry that Carl Fisher was sitting in. The accused was captured moving his hand in his right pocket.

18. [38]

    The accused walked nearby to the Camry before walking around the vehicle, at which point he could not be seen on CCTV.

19. [39]

    Around this time, the deceased came outside and had a cigarette. When he had finished his cigarette, he went back inside his room to get his keys.

20. [40]

    At 6:14pm, the deceased approached the driver’s side of the Camry and said, “Hop over, Fish.” The driver’s side window was open. Carl Fisher got out of the driver’s seat and walked around the rear of the Camry to the passenger’s side.

21. [41]

    At this time, the accused approached the Camry. The deceased was sitting in the driver’s seat. Mr Fisher saw the accused and heard some footsteps. Mr Fisher opened the front passenger door and the accused moved quickly towards the driver’s side.

22. [42]

    The accused dived through the open driver’s side window and stabbed the deceased once in the chest. He did not say anything.

23. [43]

    At 6:14:50pm, the accused ran back into the carpark and towards his room.

24. [44]

    At 6:15:13pm, the accused left his room and ran from the motel on foot. He was captured on CCTV carrying the knife used to stab the deceased in his right hand.

25. [45]

    At 6:15:29pm meanwhile, the deceased collapsed near the rear of the Camry, holding his chest.

26. [46]

    A number of witnesses provided aid to the deceased, and two calls were made to triple zero.

27. [47]

    Police arrived at the motel shortly after 6:18pm.

28. [48]

    At 6:24pm, paramedics arrived and observed the deceased to have a large puncture wound to the left side of his chest that was bleeding. He was assessed to be in cardiac arrest and was transported to Albury Base Hospital, where he arrived at 6:52pm. He was declared deceased at 6:59pm.

29. [49]

    A post-mortem examination of the deceased conducted on 12 July 2024 determined the cause of death to be a stab wound to the left anterior chest wall.

30. [50]

    At 7:02pm, police searched the accused’s motel room. They found the packaging for the four pack of steak knives and located three of the knives in various locations in the room.

31. [51]

    The fourth knife, which had been used to kill the deceased, was not located in the room.

32. [52]

    Police later located a receipt for the steak knives.

33. [53]

    The CCTV footage depicts the accused going to Woolworths at Albury Central at 6:31pm where he purchased a water bottle. At 6:35pm, he returned to Woolworths and purchased tobacco, filters and rolling papers.

34. [54]

    At 7:30pm, the accused attended the Astor Hotel and requested a room for one night. He was advised by a staff member that the hotel did not accept local residents as guests. The accused appeared nervous and stressed. The accused then left the hotel.

35. [55]

    The accused made three phone calls to Albury Police Station: at 8:45pm, 8:55pm and 8:56pm. Of relevance, the accused told the triple zero operator, “[y]eah, I've just done something at the Hume Motor Inn… I’ve ah stabbed someone”. He said that he “left after” and went to the “SS&A”. He confirmed that he used a “weapon” to stab the person, specifically a “steak knife”, and that he did not have the knife on him. However, he said that he knew where the knife was, and that it was “in a bush somewhere”. When asked by the triple zero operator what had happened, the accused said:

36. [56]

    At 9:00pm, police arrived at the SS&A Club on Wilson Street, Albury, where the accused was found and arrested. Police cautioned the accused, who said, “[y]eah I stabbed a guy”.

37. [57]

    The accused was searched by police. Thereafter, a further conversation took place, in which the accused told the police that he had dumped the knife “in the bush somewhere”, though he could not explain where it was.

38. [58]

    He later told police whilst at the police station that the knife was in the “Albury Wodonga Health carpark sort of area”, and that the knife had a “brown handle”, though he declined to say anything else.

39. [59]

    The accused was formally received into custody. He told the custody manager that he did not have any medical issues. He told police that he had a memory disorder and refused to answer any other questions. The custody manager noted that the accused appeared irrational.

40. [60]

    The accused was read his Part 9 rights. He told police that he had used “ice” in the past few days, that he hadn't slept and that he was “coming down”. The accused was placed into recovery. Later that evening, he was found shaking uncontrollably. He was attended to by NSW Ambulance and medically cleared.

41. [61]

    The following morning, the accused obtained legal advice. A forensic procedure was undertaken at 11:16am. During the forensic procedure, the accused asked police, “[d]id you find the weapon?”. He thereafter said, “I’m pretty sure I know where it is”. The accused was cautioned and reminded that he was being recorded. He confirmed that he had obtained legal advice.

42. [62]

    The accused told police that he had disposed of the knife at Albury-Wodonga Health. He said that it was one street back from Kiewa Street, where it “rises in the landscaping”. He explained that he “put leaves and shit over it”. The accused pointed to the location on Google Maps.

43. [63]

    The forensic procedure interview was suspended and restarted at 12:30pm. The accused was cautioned. He was shown Google Maps of 475 Townsend Street, Albury. He pointed to an area described by police as a retaining wall, brickwork or a garden bed. The accused reiterated that he had put leaves on top of the knife.

44. [64]

    Police attended 475 Townsend Street, Albury. The knife was found on a raised garden bed and seized. It was identified as the fourth steak knife in the “Baccarat” set.

45. [65]

    An electronically recorded interview with the accused was commenced later that afternoon. Whilst the accused initially agreed to be interviewed by police, he then terminated the interview, indicating that he wished to assert his right to silence until he could speak with a lawyer.

46. [66]

    Forensic examinations were conducted in relation to the Toyota Camry and the knife seized from 475 Townsend Street. The accused’s DNA was located on the window of the Camry and the blade and handle of the knife. There was also a palm print on the exterior rear driver's side window of the Camry matching that of the accused.

Summary of the expert evidence

1. [67]

   There were no material inconsistencies between the opinions furnished by Dr Furst and Dr Eagle in their respective reports. Both Dr Furst and Dr Eagle concluded that a defence of mental health impairment is available to the accused.

2. [68]

   Dr Furst assessed the accused via audiovisual link on 11 February 2025. In preparing his report, he reviewed the accused’s medical records and the brief of evidence.

3. [69]

   Dr Furst observed that, at the time of the assessment, the accused was exhibiting signs of psychosis in the form of ongoing delusional beliefs, and that he lacked insight into his illness and treatment needs.

4. [70]

   The accused reported to Dr Furst that a psychologist he saw in Newcastle in 2019 had “projected emotions onto him”. He related a lot of his “problems” to this psychologist.

5. [71]

   The accused also reported having been sexually abused in an “organised child abuse network”, though Dr Furst opined that his “memories” of abuse in that respect were “likely delusional”.

6. [72]

   The accused exhibited ongoing delusional beliefs about his father not being his real father, consistent with “Capgras’ Delusion”.

7. [73]

   The accused reported having used “ice” (methylamphetamine) sporadically since 2022 and having abused cannabis since his teenage years.

8. [74]

   Dr Furst diagnosed the accused with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a chronic and severe mental disorder that is characterised by distortions in thinking, perception, emotions, language, sense of self and behaviour. Common symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, mood disturbance, behavioural disturbance, motor abnormalities and cognitive deficits.

9. [75]

   Dr Furst recorded the accused’s psychiatric history, which included several hospital admissions since 2020, during which time he was prescribed various antipsychotic medications.

10. [76]

    The accused was admitted to Nolan House, the psychiatric inpatient unit at Albury Hospital, on 26 August 2022 where he remained until 8 September 2022. On that occasion he voiced his belief that he was the victim of a paedophile ring. He was managed with depot antipsychotic medication and was discharged on a CTO.

11. [77]

    There was a further admission to Nolan House from 14 May 2023 to 27 September 2023. The accused was suffering from similar delusional beliefs at the time about being the victim of child abuse and being “dismembered” as a child. He was treated with antipsychotic medication.

12. [78]

    The accused discontinued his medication in November or December 2023, complaining that the medication was adversely affecting his vision. He suffered a further relapse of his schizophrenic illness and was again admitted to Nolan House from 26 December 2023 to 31 January 2024.

13. [79]

    On 3 June 2024, the accused was again admitted to Nolan House for treatment of his schizophrenia. At the time of admission, he appeared acutely psychotic and tested positive for methylamphetamine. He was discharged on 12 June 2024, approximately 4 weeks prior to the offending. He was prescribed the antipsychotic medication “Invega Sustenna” to be administered by way of injection every 4 weeks, his last dose being given on 22 June 2024.

14. [80]

    In relation to the offending, Dr Furst records that the accused told him the following:

15. [81]

    Schizophrenia is a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4 of the Act. Dr Furst considered it highly likely that the antipsychotic medication prescribed to the accused in 2024 had been ineffective, such that the accused was most likely irrational and paranoid when he stabbed and killed the deceased.

16. [82]

    Dr Furst concluded that the accused did not know that his actions were wrong in that he was unable to reason about the wrongfulness of his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure, as perceived by reasonable people (s 28 of the Act). As such, Dr Furst opined that the accused had the mental health impairment defence available to him.

17. [83]

    Dr Eagle conducted an in-person assessment of the accused on 24 July 2025. Dr Eagle also reviewed relevant documentary material, including the report of Dr Furst.

18. [84]

    In her report dated 8 August 2025, Dr Eagle provided a detailed record of the accused’s psychiatric history.

19. [85]

    Dr Eagle opined that, at the time of the in-person assessment:

20. [86]

    Dr Eagle observed that the accused’s perception of his symptoms of schizophrenia remained narrow. While he acknowledged that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, he reported that the manifestation of his illness was an inability to focus and “thought blocking”. The accused had previously resisted a diagnosis of schizophrenia because he felt it meant that the “projection didn’t happen”. He reported to Dr Eagle that he could still feel the “projection” but that this was no longer troubling him.

21. [87]

    The accused reported that prior to the offending, he had cured his condition with “ice” and cannabis, and that he was smoking “about half [a] point daily”. He continued this pattern of use until he was financially cut off from his parents. At that stage, he felt he was cured. He had last smoked half a point of methylamphetamine approximately 3-4 days prior to the offending. He denied smoking any cannabis.

22. [88]

    The accused provided an account of his offending to Dr Eagle. He explained that he had bought the knives because he was “paranoid about these child abuse criminals coming to get me”. He believed that the driver of the car was revving its engine, which indicated that they were part of the child abuse cult. Dr Eagle recorded that the accused provided the following further explanation as to his actions:

23. [89]

    The accused believed that he was subject to “mind control”. He denied any malicious intention and said, “I’m not a killer”. He reiterated that he had tried to resist the “projection” but had been unable to.

24. [90]

    Dr Eagle accepted that the accused had a diagnosis of treatment resistant schizophrenia, with his first episode of psychosis in 2020 and multiple relapses (precipitated by non-compliance with medication and substance use) thereafter. She noted that this was a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4 of the Act. She considered that the accused’s condition was “severe” and would require assertive mental health treatment and management. She observed that his symptoms, including persecutory delusions, had not completely resolved on treatment with antipsychotic medication.

25. [91]

    Dr Eagle opined that the accused was experiencing a relapse of psychosis due to schizophrenia at the time of the offending, and that this caused him to be unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his actions, as perceived by reasonable people, were wrong. On this basis, she considered that the mental health impairment defence was available to him. She explained:

26. [92]

    Dr Eagle indicated that the accused’s awareness of his legal rights (to some degree) when speaking with police did not affect her opinion that he was unable to reason as to the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the killing.

27. [93]

    Having also diagnosed the accused with a severe substance use disorder (which she considered to be in remission in a controlled environment), Dr Eagle added that the accused’s use of illicit substances had resulted in an exacerbation of his psychotic illness. However, she did not consider that the accused’s use of methylamphetamine in the days preceding the offending was either solely or largely contributory to his actions, which arose from his chronic schizophrenia.

28. [94]

    Finally, Dr Eagle concluded that there did not appear to be any inconsistencies between her diagnostic formulation and that of Dr Furst.

29. [95]

    On 15 April 2026, Dr Eagle provided a supplementary report in which she maintained that the accused was acutely psychotic due to a relapse of schizophrenia at the time of the killing. He demonstrated persistent symptoms including delusions, passivity phenomena, referential ideas, hallucinations and thought disorder on a background of overall functional decline and several relapses of acute psychosis.

30. [96]

    Dr Eagle specifically addressed whether the accused’s actions of fleeing the scene and hiding the knife could be regarded as inconsistent with an inability to reason as to wrongfulness.

31. [97]

    Dr Eagle concluded that the accused running away from the scene appeared to be a reaction to the circumstances rather than indicative of any intact capacity to reason with composure about the wrongfulness of his conduct, stating:

32. [98]

    In relation to the accused’s actions of hiding the knife, Dr Eagle similarly concluded that, even if he “had had an intellectual understanding that his actions would be perceived as legally wrong, his alleged conduct at the material time arose from intense persecutory delusions, passivity phenomena, perceptual disturbances (hallucinations) and referential ideation. He had disorganisation of his thought processes preventing him from thinking clearly and he was unable to determine what was real”.

33. [99]

    Dr Eagle remained of the view that the accused was unable to reason with any degree of composure as to the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

Position of the parties

1. [100]

   The Crown provided written submissions to the Court (MFI 1). In an email to the Court dated 16 April 2026, counsel for the accused indicated that he supported the Crown’s submissions and would not be making any submissions in reply.

2. [101]

   The Crown submitted that the agreed facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused stabbed the deceased in the chest, and that the deceased died as a consequence of the stab wound inflicted by the accused. Accordingly, it is not disputed that the accused caused the death of the deceased.

3. [102]

   Further, both parties agree that the expert evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the accused could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

4. [103]

   The joint position of the parties is that it would therefore be open to the Court, after considering the evidence, to be satisfied that the defence under s 28 is so established and to enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible under s 31 of the Act.

5. [104]

   In the event of such a verdict, both parties agree that the Court would refer the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in the terms set out in section 33(1)(b) of the Act. Significantly, there was no application made by the accused for his release under s 33(1)(c).

Consideration

1. [105]

   The defence of mental health impairment is provided by s 28 of the Act:

2. [106]

   The reference to a jury in ss (2) includes a judge in proceedings determined by a judge alone (s 6).

3. [107]

   The term “mental health impairment” is defined in s 4 of the Act as follows:

4. [108]

   In order to establish a defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Act, the accused bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities:

   1. (1)

      that he had a mental health impairment, cognitive impairment (or both) at the time that he stabbed the deceased; and

   2. (2)

      that the relevant impairment had one of the effects referred to in subsections 1(a) or (b).

5. [109]

   I am satisfied that the accused has established on a balance of probabilities that at the time he stabbed the deceased, he was suffering from a mental health impairment that had the effect that he did not know that the act was wrong: that is, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

6. [110]

   Accordingly, I am satisfied that the defence under s 28 is made out.

Consequential orders

1. [111]

   Sections 33 and 34 of the Act set out the consequences which flow from the return of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible:

2. [112]

   By s 33(3), the Court cannot make an order for the release of the defendant unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the safety of the defendant or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by the defendant’s release.

3. [113]

   If the Court does not order the release of the defendant, then the Court must refer the defendant to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 34 of the Act. The note to s 33 clarifies that a person referred to the Tribunal under s 34 becomes a “forensic patient” within the meaning of that Act.

4. [114]

   The Crown submitted that, in line with the recommendations made by both psychiatrists, and in the absence of any application by the accused seeking his release, the only appropriate order in this case is for the detention of the accused under s 33(1)(b).

5. [115]

   I agree that this is the appropriate course given the evidence and recommendations made by both psychiatrists.

Verdict and Orders

1. [116]

   On the charge that the accused, on 8 July 2024 at Albury in the State of New South Wales, did murder Royce Mallett, the Court returns a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

2. [117]

   I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Act, the accused is to be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.

   2. (2)

      Pursuant to s 34 of the Act, the accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

   3. (3)

      Pursuant to s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the victim impact statements of Caitlin O’Keeffe, Roy Mallett and Felicity Mallett are to be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

3. [118]

   I make the following directions:

   1. (1)

      The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Minister for Health as soon as practicable of the making of these orders.

   2. (2)

      The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable of the making of these orders and to provide the Tribunal with the following documentation:

   3. (3)

      The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network as soon as practicable of the verdict and orders in this matter and provide it with copies of the following documents: