Director of Public Prosecutions v Woodhead
[2016] VSC 472
•26 April 2016
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2014 0164
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| EASTON GEORGE WOODHEAD |
---
JUDGE: | JANE DIXON J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARING: | 30 September – 2 November, 16 November 2015 & 27 January 2016 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 26 April 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Woodhead |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 472 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Jury trial – Verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment – Declaration that person liable to supervision – Custodial supervision order made for a nominal term of 25 years – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Ms M Williams QC with Ms R Harper | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr M Tovey QC with Ms C Hollingworth | Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler |
HER HONOUR:
Easton Woodhead, on 2 November 2015, a jury found you not guilty of the murder of Wayne Perry because of mental impairment.
It is sufficient to state the facts of your case briefly. In the early hours of the morning on 5 January 2014, you stabbed Wayne Perry at Enterprize Park in Melbourne, beside the Yarra River. Mr Perry was homeless and was sleeping on an elevated platform beneath a concrete pylon. You were attempting to retrieve your motorcycle, which had been stolen some months before and which you had discovered was parked nearby. You confronted Mr Perry about your motorcycle. You pulled out a knife and, when Mr Perry refused to assist you in starting the motorcycle, you stabbed him multiple times to his face, chest and hands. You threw the knife into the river, and left the scene on foot. Mr Perry died shortly after from his injuries, and you were arrested and charged with his murder.
At the trial, you raised a defence of mental impairment, and much of the evidence before the jury focused on your psychiatric state in the months leading up to and at the time of the killing.
Following the jury verdict, pursuant to s 23A of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Be Tried) Act 1997 (‘the Act’), I declared you liable to supervision under part 5 of the Act and ordered a report on your mental condition pursuant to s 41 of the Act, with such report to contain a diagnosis and prognosis of your condition and your response to any treatment, therapy or counselling that may have been provided and a suggested treatment or other plan for managing the condition. I also sought a certificate of available services pursuant to s 47 of the Act.
You were further detained in custody in prison at that time pursuant to s 24(3) of the Act because there was no practicable alternative in the circumstances as they existed at that time. This was due to unprecedented demand for beds at Thomas Embling Hospital.
After declaring you liable to supervision, the following steps occurred.
On 14 January 2016 the Court received a letter from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (‘Forensicare’) enclosing Dr Ann Brennan's psychiatric report under s 41 of the Act.
On 27 January 2016, a mention hearing took place in which Forensicare indicated that more time was required to obtain a certificate of available services. Therefore you were further remanded in custody. The matter was adjourned until 26 April 2016. A supplementary report was requested to be filed closer to 26 April 2016.
On 14 April 2016 the Court received Dr Brennan's supplementary report.
On 22 April 2016 the Court received the s 47 certificate of available services indicating that a bed would be available on 26 April 2016.
You have spent more than two years in a prison setting after being charged with murder and for the past five and a half months have remained in prison despite the jury verdict on 2 November 2015 year that you were not criminally responsible for the crime of murder. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. Nevertheless it now appears that a bed has become available at the Thomas Embling Hospital and a certificate of available services pursuant to s 47 of the Act has been duly signed by the authorities. Your future forensic management will be under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Thomas Embling Hospital.
The regime in place for those who harm others while mentally impaired is complex and difficult to understand after a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment. A misunderstanding of the principles required by law to be applied in such cases may lead to the misconceived view that a harsh and punitive approach is warranted despite the jury verdict.
The Court acknowledges the void left in the life of family and friends in the wake of Mr Perry's death and the challenges they have faced in trying to understand what led to the violent attack upon him.
In deciding whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial supervision order, I am bound to apply the principles set out in s 39 of the Act, including the principle that restrictions on a person's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum, consistent with the safety of the community. Nevertheless, it is recognised that those who have been affected by your violent actions may fear that you present a risk to others in the future if allowed at large.
Each of the three people who submitted a s 42 report from the perspective of their relationship to Mr Perry expressed concern that you should be very closely monitored and supervised in the future to manage any foreseeable risks to members of the public as a result of your mental impairment. I have received three s 42 statements from family members and friends of the deceased, including the deceased's sister and brother, Ms Michele Perry and Mr Craig Holway and his friend, Ms Nerida Goulter, who was also a witness to the events which led to the charge of murder.
Each of them speak of their grief and sadness as a result of Mr Perry's death. Michele Perry spoke of her brother's unfortunate upbringing, in which he suffered many deprivations and much abuse from an early age. Craig Holway spoke of his close regard for his brother, whom he described as a strange and eccentric man, but one who was also kind and caring. Mr Holway indicated that despite his previous offers to house his brother, the deceased preferred his independence and lifestyle on the streets. Nerida Goulter spoke of her distress at witnessing the death of her friend. She recalled the way he used to cheer her up when she visited the pylons. She visits the memorial at that location to remember him.
A s 42 report was also received from your father, Mark Woodhead, speaking on behalf of himself and other family members. He indicated the family's sympathy for Mr Perry's family and friends for this tragic event, especially in light of the long period over which the case has been ventilated in the public arena. Mr Mark Woodhead indicated that your extended family stand ready to actively and constructively assist you to recover from and appropriately manage your mental illness. A family history of mental illness relating to other family members means that your family have some insight into the challenges involved.
Mr Mark Woodhead notes that you have regularly expressed deep remorse for what occurred, now that your mental state has stabilised. He notes that you appear to understand that your mental health is something that you will have to deal with for the rest of your life and that your family will remain your core support network.
It is very clear that your father, brother and extended family will do everything possible to assist your recovery and that they will willingly cooperate with the Thomas Embling Hospital to implement the most effective strategies for confronting your mental illness.
Although there was extensive psychiatric evidence called during your trial, it was necessary to obtain a further report under s 41 of the Act, and this was supplied by Dr Ann Brennan, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at Forensicare.
She discussed the events which led to your trial, your clinical presentation when she assessed you on 30 November 2015 at Port Phillip Prison and her opinion and recommendations.
She stated that you are a 21-year-old man diagnosed with first episode psychosis/schizophrenia being treated in the prison setting with anti-psychotic medication.
She noted that with medication your condition had stabilised. She noted that you should be admitted for treatment at Thomas Embling Hospital.
She recommended that the assessment and treatment at Thomas Embling Hospital should include consideration of both your psychotic disorder and your mood disorder. The priority will be to ensure stability through longer term planning of prescribed medications, inter-related treatment strategies and relapse-prevention planning.
She also noted the importance of assisting you to avoid relapse by remaining abstinent from substance-abuse. She advised that you will need to work with the treatment team towards long-term adherence to rules and supervision in order to make appropriate psychiatric and psychological progress.
She observed the limited opportunities available to you to commence on a formal treatment pathway whilst in prison. Vocational and psycho-social rehabilitation would be offered at Thomas Embling Hospital. She opined that you will require long-term mental health assessment, treatment, rehabilitation and risk-assessment within a secure forensic in-patient setting.
In a supplementary report, dated 13 April 2016, Dr Brennan noted that in her view, you require treatment and rehabilitation within an in-patient setting and the only facility suitable for this is Thomas Embling Hospital.
She stated that your treatment and rehabilitation needs are complex, including medication review, psycho-education in conjunction with family members, drug and alcohol counselling and short and longer term recovery planning.
She opined that at the present time, you are not suitable for treatment in a community setting. She observed that your depressed mood and limited psychiatric follow-up in the past six months has been contributed to by the uncertainty you have been experiencing about your ultimate disposition. This has also been a result of your worries related to the impact of the killing of Mr Perry on his family, as well as the impact on your family of your current situation.
She noted that you had expressed a desire for therapeutic help in addressing those matters. She opined that any further delays in your final disposition were likely to have a negative impact on your rehabilitation and on your clinical progress within Thomas Embling Hospital.
It is clear to me, in light of the psychiatric evidence adduced at your trial, the jury's verdict, the reports received under ss 41 and 42 and the certificate received under s 47, the principles set out in s 39 of the Act, and the criteria in s 40 of the Act, that you should be transferred to Thomas Embling Hospital for ongoing assessment, supervision and treatment under the auspices of Forensicare.
Members of the public and family and friends of the deceased should be aware that the order that I am about to impose is a very significant restriction on your future life and liberty.
The purpose of the order is to ensure your future supervision and treatment, so as to protect yourself and others from the risk of future endangerment.
Coghlan J has described the regime for forensic management under the Act in these terms:[1]
The aim of the Act is to eventually have those who have been found not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment, re-admitted to the community. I use the word 'eventually' advisedly. The first step in the process is the granting of leave. Such leave must be authorised by the Forensic Leave Panel. Leave begins as escorted leave which involves the presence of two staff members from the hospital at all times. The next step is attended leave with one staff member and finally, unescorted leave. The places where leave may be taken are fixed. A breach of any condition of leave leads to revocation of the leave and the system is operated with great care.
If satisfactory progress is made, application may be made to the court for extended leave. Such leave can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the safety of the person subject of the order or members of the public will not be seriously endangered as a result of the release.
At all stages of the process staff at Thomas Embling will attempt to engage with the family and, in the latter part of the process, victims and family members will have the right to report to the court, and the DPP is obliged to inform them of any such application.
[1]R v Cavallari [2013] VSC 84 [30]-[32].
I respectfully adopt his Honour's explanation of the forensic process as part of these reasons.
It is understandable that family and friends of the deceased may feel anguish as the proceedings continue through these stages, but they should rest assured that the staff at Thomas Embling Hospital have the professional expertise to psychiatrically manage, supervise and treat you in a clinical setting for as long as required.
I record my thanks to counsel and to the psychiatric experts who have contributed to this matter.
I hereby order that Easton George Woodhead is liable to a custodial supervision order pursuant to s 26 of the Act. Easton George Woodhead is committed to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. Pursuant to s 28 of the Act the nominal term of the custodial supervision order is 25 years commencing 6 January 2014. I direct that Easton George Woodhead be brought back before the Court or attend via video link for review in 15 months.
0
0
0