Director of Public Prosecutions v Valdez
[2014] VCC 1847
•10 November 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-14-00442
| DIRECTOR of PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Prosecutions |
| v | |
| NORMAN VALDEZ | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Cannon | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 August 2014 and 10 November 2014 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 10 November 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Valdez | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 1847 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Judgment – Arson - Accused found not guilty by reason of mental impairment –Confirmed diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1998; Mental Health Act 2014
Judgment: Unconditional release pursuant to s.23(b) Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1998
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms A. French (Hearing) Ms R. Harper (Disposition Hearing) | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms J. Smith | Robert Stary Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1 On 11 August 2014, Norman Valdez entered a plea of not guilty because of mental impairment before me in respect of one charge of arson.
2 Following a consent mental impairment hearing I directed that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded, having been satisfied that at the time Mr Valdez engaged in the relevant conduct, he did not know that the conduct was wrong as defined by s.20(1)(b) Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.
3 The circumstances giving rise to the proceedings and the charge are as follows: Mr Norman Valdez was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2005 when he was 26 years old. He is now 35 years old. At the time of the incident giving rise to these proceedings Mr Valdez was living with his father and older brother in a house in Altona Meadows. The house was owned by Norman Valdez's father.
4 At about 8.10 pm on Friday 18 January 2013 Norman Valdez, who was 33 at the time, was at home on his own. He began punching holes in the walls at the house. He then obtained a container of petrol which was in the back-yard and poured petrol along the hallway and over the beds and a couch. He set fire to combustible materials that were lying around the house with a candle. This gave rise to the charge of arson.
5 At about 8.12pm he telephoned 000 from his mobile phone to report that the house was on fire. He then took the family's pet dog and left the premises. Emergency services attended the premises and extinguished the fire. At about 9.45 pm Mr Valdez walked back to the house and told police that he was responsible for lighting the fire. He said that he had a mental illness which caused him to damage the property, and he had called 000 as he did not want his neighbours or their houses to be harmed.
6 The total claimed cost in respect of the fire was $122,147.16 comprising costs for building repairs, temporary accommodation, restoration fees and other fees.
7 At about 9.50pm Mr Valdez was arrested and taken to Altona North police station. An interview was commenced but suspended one minute into the interview because of concerns about Mr Valdez's mental health. Police contacted the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, and as a result of advice obtained from a doctor at VIFM Norman Valdez was taken to the Werribee Mercy Hospital Psychiatry Inpatient Unit, and he was admitted as an involuntary patient. He was released approximately seven and a half weeks after the incident.
8 On 14 March 2013 Mr Valdez was admitted to the Prevention and Recovery Care Service, known as PARCS, in Deer Park, a community based residential psychiatry care service. He was discharged from PARCS on 2 April 2014 and placed on a community treatment order.
9 On 20 May 2013, Norman Valdez attended Altona North police station and was interviewed in the presence of an independent third person and solicitor. He said he had been on the computer looking for an apartment to move into. He started receiving messages which caused him to become angry and to want to burn the house down.
10 At the instigation of defence, Dr Lester A. Walton, consultant psychiatrist, assessed Norman Valdez on 8 May 2014 and prepared a report dated 12 May 2014. At the original hearing of this matter Dr Walton gave evidence adopting the contents of his report. In his report he noted that Mr Valdez said that messages he had been receiving had emanated from the computer and interacted directly with his thoughts. He said, "I can understand what the computer is thinking", and that on the day of the incident, he said, "I was committed to moving out. The messages were telling me the complete opposite." Mr Valdez said that at the time of the offending, "I was just really angry, like I was fighting someone, it was like an argument between the messages and myself, I wasn't going to let go." Dr Walton considered that the length of Norman Valdez's stay at Werribee Mercy Hospital was reasonably lengthy and a reflection of the severity of his psychiatric breakdown.
11 Prior to the incident, Mr Valdez had been taking oral medication to treat his paranoid schizophrenia. After the incident he was placed on long acting injectable anti‑psychotic medication. Dr Walton described Mr Valdez as suffering from chronic schizophrenia. He opined that at the time of the incident which gave rise to the charge Mr Valdez was acutely psychotic and responding to ideas of reference from the computer which led to mounting largely uncontrollable anger. He concluded that Mr Valdez had the defence of mental impairment available to him on the basis that at the time of the offending he was not able to reason with any meaningful degree of composure as to the wrongfulness of his actions, thus satisfying s.20(1)(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, or the Act.
12 At the prosecution's request, Dr Prashant Pandurangi, a consultant psychiatrist, attached to Forensicare assessed Mr Valdez on 10 July 2014 at the Community Forensic Mental Health Service in Clifton Hill. He prepared a report dated 8 August 2014.
13 Mr Valdez told doctor Pandurangi that he first came into contact with mental health services in 2005. His parents had called the crisis assessment team after hearing him arguing and yelling by himself in his room. Mr Valdez reported that he was getting messages from the television. According to a discharge summary from Werribee Mercy Mental Health Service dated 7 October 2005 Mr Valdez's mental health had been deteriorating for about a three‑year period prior to his admission. As a result of his admission in 2005 Mr Valdez was prescribed an oral anti‑psychotic medication, Abilify, and was advised to receive follow‑up treatment with his general practitioner.
14 Norman Valdez told Dr Pandurangi that he had been in regular contact with his GP over the years and generally compliant with his medications. Mr Valdez reported that he had not slept the night before the incident which gave rise to the charge. He gave a similar account of that given to Dr Walton, and I will not go into the explanation which he detailed, which is contained in that report.
15 Dr Pandurangi noted that Mr Valdez had an established diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and he considered him to have a poor understanding of his illness and need for medication. He held the view that at the time of the offending Mr Valdez was psychotic, saying he believed that his emotions were influenced by external forces and believed that he was destroying the property and burning the house to attack the messages from the people or forces who he believed were sending the messages. Mr Valdez was suffering from a mental impairment, namely a relapse of his schizophrenic illness which grossly impaired his judgment, and he was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure that his conduct was wrong. Consequently, Dr Pandurangi concluded that the defence of mental impairment was open to Mr Valdez.
16 In his report, Dr Walton noted that Mr Valdez's current medical regime completely contained his psychotic symptoms, and that in view of his voluntary compliance with treatment, that no order needed to be made in terms of his management. Perhaps as Mr Valdez's level of compliance did deteriorate, there were adequate powers under the Mental Health Act 2014to deal with this. Dr Pandurangi recommended that there further exploration of the issue as to whether it was necessary to impose a supervision order upon Mr Valdez.
17 Having found that Mr Valdez was not guilty because of mental impairment, I was invited by the parties to obtain a further expert report with a view to determining whether it was necessary to declare Mr Valdez liable for supervision or whether I ought unconditionally release him.
18 To that end I obtained a report from Dr Katinka Morton, a consultant psychiatrist at Forensicare, which is dated 22 October 2014. As Ms Smith set out in her most helpful submissions, which were adopted by the Crown, the report indicated the following matters: that Mr Valdez was well engaged with his treating team and always been compliant; that he was now on a better medication regime than previously whereby he received fortnightly injections of long‑acting doses of anti‑psychotic medication at an appropriate therapeutic level; that he presented as a low risk of re-offending and therefore his danger to the community was low risk; that a supervision order would not reduce any such risk as there was; that he was currently receiving case management from Mid-West Area Mental Health Services, Harvester Clinic, as a voluntary patient; that this service would take into account the circumstances giving rise to the arson charge and the direct association between a relapse of psychosis and offending behaviour, and any discharge planning would occur with an awareness of Mr Valdez's previous lapse of psychosis.
19 Further, the parents of Mr Valdez, who are the victims of the house fire, are most supportive of their son and are in favour of an unconditional release order rather than one involving supervision. Mr Valdez's family are in weekly contact with him and are yet another means of effectively monitoring Mr Valdez's wellbeing and compliance with treatment.
20 In this regard I would expect that if they noticed a deterioration in Mr Valdez's condition, they would contact Mental Health authorities immediately. As Ms Smith and Ms Harper submitted, there are mechanisms available under the Mental Health Act 2014 to address any difficulties that Mr Valdez may encounter in the future in respect of his compliance.
21 Bearing in mind the matters set out in ss.39 and 40 of the Act, that is the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Be Tried) Act 1997, I am of the view that a supervision order in Mr Valdez's case would be an unnecessary restriction of his freedom and personal autonomy and would not advance the safety of the community any further than the present regime to which he is subject.
22 Therefore, pursuant to s.23(b) of the Act I direct that Mr Valdez be unconditionally released.
23 Further, although Mr Valdez's conduct which gave rise to the arson charge was indeed serious, in view of the fact that it was he who called the police and swiftly made full admissions and in view of the fact that now he is being appropriately treated and is at low risk of re-offending to the point where he has been unconditionally released by me, I do not regard it as being necessary in all the circumstances for such an order pursuant to s.464ZFAAA, Crimes Act 1958, to be made. Nor is it in the public interest to do so.
0
0
0