The High Court has ordered that Samuela Tawase be committed to St Giles Hospital for confinement, assessment, treatment, care and management after setting aside a magistrate’s order releasing him into the community. A warrant of commital was issued, with the court directing that Tawase remain subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Mental Health Act 2010.
The medical superintendent and treating team at St Giles Hospital were ordered to provide any treatment, medication, monitoring, rehabilitation and assessments lawfully required. Justice Daniel Goundar further ordered that any future decision concerning Tawase’s leave, discharge, transfer, community treatment, supervision or other management must be made in accordance with the Mental Health Act 2010 and the applicable review process.
Justice Goundar also directed its registry to transmit a certified copy of the judgment and warrant of commitment to the relevant authorities, including the medical superintendent of St Giles Hospital, the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary for Mental Health. The orders followed Justice Goundar’s finding that the magistrate did not have legal authority to release Tawase into the community after he was found not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind. Tawase had faced charges arising from an incident in July 2025 in which he entered a temple and damaged property.
While no one was physically injured, people present were frightened. Psychiatric evidence established that Tawase had schizophrenia and was experiencing auditory hallucinations at the relevant time. He believed he was required to destroy the temple. Although he later became fit to participate in proceedings following treatment, the evidence supported the finding that he was affected by unsoundness of mind at the time of the offending.
The special finding that he was not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind was not challenged. The issue before the High Court was whether the magistrate could release him into the community subject to compulsory treatment, medication, clinical review, family supervision and conditions relating to alcohol and drugs. Justice Goundar ruled that the magistrate did not have that authority. Justice Goundar said the requirement for confinement was mandatory and that an ordinary private residence, including the home of a relative, could not amount to confinement in law. It also found that compulsory community treatment orders were governed by the Mental Health Act 2010 and had to be made through the processes and safeguards provided under that legislation. The magistrate’s community release and compulsory treatment orders were therefore set aside.
