Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, line 7, to delete "A person is in material breach of his or her" and substitute "The clinical director may revoke a".

I put this amendment on Committee Stage as well. It is an amendment to section 8. It is somewhat technical but it is to change the language in that the new section 13B, as currently drafted, has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it reminiscent of Lord Atkin in Liversidge v. Anderson, the idea being that a person is in material breach where the clinical director believes that person is in material breach. It seems somewhat circular. We thought it might be more accurate and honest for the clinical director to have to take responsibility for evoking the conditional discharge whereas currently it seems their private belief would be enough to put the person in material breach. Is it good enough under our Constitution and under due process to suggest that just because a person believes another person to be in material breach they are then deemed to be in material breach? The purpose of the amendment is to change the wording to clarify that it is not just a subjective view of the clinical director.