Director of Public Prosecutions v Woodruff
[2016] VSC 525
•16 September 2016
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2015 0001
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHN WOODRUFF |
---
JUDGE: | HOLLINGWORTH J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 12, 13 and 14 July 2016 |
DATE OF RULING: | 16 September 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Woodruff |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 525 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – One count of murder, three counts of theft – Accused previously found unfit to stand trial – Special hearing held – Verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Custodial supervision order made – Nominal term of 25 years – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 ss 26 and 28
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr G Hevey | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For John Woodruff | Mr A Waters | Galbally & O’Bryan Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
John Woodruff was charged with one count of murder, and three counts of theft. The charges arose from events which occurred between 17 and 20 May 2013. During that period, Mr Woodruff murdered his neighbour, Barry Gray, and stole two motor vehicles and some petrol.
It was never disputed by the defence that Mr Woodruff committed those acts, in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. However, questions arose as to his mental capacity, both at the time of the offending and currently. That is because Mr Woodruff suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia; he suffers from psychotic episodes, in which he experiences delusions and hallucinations.
On 15 March 2016, a jury found him unfit to stand trial under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (“the Act”). On 15 April 2016, I determined, pursuant to s 11(4) of the Act, that he was not likely to become fit to stand trial within the next 12 months.[1]
[1]DPP v Woodruff (Fitness ruling) [2016] VSC 57.
A special hearing was held before a second jury. On 14 July 2016, that jury found him not guilty by reason of mental impairment of each of the offences. This is to say, the jury was satisfied that Mr Woodruff was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of committing the acts, the effect of which was that he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
At the conclusion of that hearing, I declared him liable to supervision under part 5 of the Act, and remanded him in the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine at Thomas Embling Hospital, pending the preparation of a further report required by s 41(1) of the Act.
The offending
At the time of his death, Barry Gray was 72 years old. He and his wife, Sandra, had four adult children, Allison, Jane, Brendan and Warren. Mrs Gray was living in the family home in Mooroolbark, while Mr Gray lived at their holiday house in Rye.
Mr Woodruff was 22 years old at the time. He was living at his parents’ holiday house in Rye, which was located directly behind the Grays’ house.
Mr Woodruff and Mr Gray knew each other slightly as neighbours. Mr Gray had, on occasions, been kind enough to give Mr Woodruff money for cigarettes or a lift down to the shops.
Because he suffered from emphysema, Mr Gray had limited mobility and needed to regularly use oxygen tanks. He often slept in a recliner chair in his living room, rather than climbing the few stairs to the bedroom area.
On the morning of Friday, 17 May, Mr Gray’s body was found on the living room floor of his home. Police had been called, after a local council care worker found a smashed front window and blood drops on the veranda, and nobody had answered the front door.
A post-mortem examination revealed that Mr Gray died as a result of more than 30 stab and incised wounds to his neck, upper body, arms and hands. It is not known precisely when Mr Woodruff killed Mr Gray; it occurred either late on 16 May, or in the early hours of the morning of 17 May (Charge 1).
Afterwards, Mr Woodruff stole Mr Gray’s car, a Volkswagen Caddy van (Charge 2). Thereafter, many of Mr Woodruff’s movements were captured on roadside cameras and CCTV systems. After speeding along EastLink towards the city, he ended up in Port Melbourne, where he abandoned the van in a service station carpark. Over the next few hours, he made his way back to Rye using several different forms of public transport.
Police conducted a general door knock of the area around Mr Gray’s home on 17 May. When they knocked at the door of Mr Woodruff’s home, he behaved strangely and refused to engage with them.
Two days later, on 19 May, Mr Woodruff stole a Subaru car from the driveway of a house in Blairgowrie; that car belonged to Alexander Lockwood (Charge 3).
That evening, Mr Woodruff drove the Subaru towards the Melbourne CBD, and then north along the Hume Highway. At a BP service station in Glenrowan, he filled the car with petrol and drove off without paying for it (Charge 4).
On 20 May, Mr Woodruff was arrested in Albury, New South Wales. He was sleeping in the Subaru, which was parked in the driveway at his grandmother’s home.
Initially, the police attended simply in order to ask Mr Woodruff to leave the property. However, he became hostile and drove the Subaru into a NSW police car, which was sitting at the end of the driveway. Mr Woodruff also threatened police with a wooden baseball bat that he had with him. He then ran down the street, waving the wooden bat, until he was eventually tasered and arrested.
At the time of his arrest, Mr Woodruff also had in his possession a black-handled knife, worn in a sheath strapped to his chest. The knife was later determined to be the weapon used to kill Mr Gray.
Effects of the offending
A number of members of Mr Gray’s family have provided the court with reports, which describe the effect that these events have had on them. It is clear that Mr Gray’s tragic death has had a profound effect, personally and professionally, on several generations of family members.
Barry Gray was a much-loved member of his family, who is greatly missed by them in so many different ways. Family members speak of his warmth, his sense of humour, and the important role he played in the lives of his children and grandchildren.
They struggle to make sense of what can only be described as a totally senseless killing. They are particularly distressed by the unexpected and violent nature of the attack, on an elderly and physically vulnerable man, and the thought of what Mr Gray might have suffered before he died. Many spoke of their sadness at being unable to say a proper goodbye to Mr Gray, because of the extent of the injuries inflicted on him. Many of them suffer from loss of sleep, nightmares and anxiety, as a result of what happened.
They also feel angry that Mr Woodruff was released from prison only a few weeks before these events, with what seems to have been inadequate supervision and monitoring of his mental health, after he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia whilst in custody.
Throughout his long working life, Mr Gray was a hard-working and talented carpenter, with a passion for crafting musical instruments in his spare time. He built the family’s Rye holiday house himself, from recycled materials he collected over the years, creating a special place his family could enjoy together; that has made selling the house after his death especially painful for them.
Family members have found the complicated procedures imposed by the Act frustrating and time-consuming. The volatile nature of Mr Woodruff’s schizophrenia required both sides to obtain several expert psychiatric reports, over a period of many months, to address issues related to fitness to stand trial and mental impairment. Mr Woodruff’s relapse into a florid psychotic state on two occasions, just before a hearing was due to start, also added to those delays.
Notwithstanding that both sides’ experts were in agreement as to Mr Woodruff’s mental illness, the legislation required there to be two separate hearings before two different juries, for them to come to exactly the same conclusions as the experts. Had Mr Woodruff been fit to stand trial, the issue of mental impairment could have been quickly dealt with by consent before a judge alone; regrettably, the current legislation does not permit that to happen in the case of a person who is not fit to stand trial, no matter how unequivocal the medical evidence is.
Many members of the Gray family were present in court for both of the hearings, as well as numerous directions hearings and mentions leading up to those proceedings. They felt that their presence in court was necessary to ensure that Mr Gray was not forgotten. The unusual nature of both the fitness hearing and the special hearing necessarily required the jury to focus on Mr Woodruff’s mental health, rather than on Mr Gray. Understandably, Mr Gray’s family have felt alienated and frustrated by that process.
Many of their very legitimate concerns and criticisms in relation to the procedures imposed by the Act are shared by others. They have been examined by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, who have put forward recommendations to the government for legislative reform in relation to cases such as this one.
Mr Woodruff’s mental health
Mr Woodruff has a long history of behavioural problems, poor impulse control and aggression. During his childhood, Mr Woodruff received a number of different diagnoses from various psychiatrists, including Conduct Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Although he was not formally diagnosed with schizophrenia until his incarceration at the Melbourne Assessment Prison (“MAP”) in January 2013, he had been prescribed antipsychotic medication before then.
Whilst in the MAP, Mr Woodruff damaged property and exhibited bizarre behaviour, paranoia, and suicidal ideations. He reported hearing voices and being afraid of being harmed. This was not the first time he had exhibited paranoid symptoms. On various occasions whilst in custody, he smashed his head against a cell wall and tried to hang himself.
When Mr Woodruff was released from custody, in April 2013, he was referred to psychiatric services at Peninsula Mental Health. Tragically for Mr Gray and the Gray family, he did not follow up on that referral and stopped taking his anti-psychotic medication. Like many people with schizophrenia, Mr Woodruff does not accept that he has a mental illness for which he needs to take medication.
Evidence about Mr Woodruff’s mental state was presented to both juries by two experienced psychiatrists, Dr Carolyn Simms (for the prosecution), and Dr Lester Walton (for the defence), both of whom had assessed him on multiple occasions. Both psychiatrists diagnosed Mr Woodruff as suffering from treatment-resistant schizophrenia. They were in substantial agreement, both as to his fitness to stand trial, and his mental condition at the time of the offending.
Mr Woodruff’s psychotic symptoms include hallucinations and delusional thinking. His bizarre beliefs include: that he is being controlled by aliens via satellite technology; that people are talking about him or touching him, and he is in danger; that he can obtain special powers from God if he does certain things; that Zeus or God is inside him; that he hears the voice of God. He also experiences olfactory hallucinations, in which he believes he is being forced to smell foul things.
Mr Woodruff reported that on the day of the murder, he experienced a sensation that he was being touched in “his private parts”, and voices were telling him that Mr Gray was a paedophile (a distressing suggestion for the Gray family, which is utterly without foundation). He believed Mr Gray was “vibing” him sexually, and touching him from afar. He said that in response to the voices, and the feeling he was being sexually assaulted, he’d gone three or four times to kill Mr Gray, but had stopped. He said that eventually God helped him carry out the act, and that “God was in my body” and had possessed him. Mr Woodruff said that he was carrying a knife for protection, because he believed “the system” was trying to abduct him.
Mr Woodruff also reported having suicidal feelings at the time, wanting to be struck by lightning. After killing Mr Gray, he went outside expecting to be struck by lightning and die.
Mr Woodruff was arrested in May 2013, and was in custody in NSW until September 2014. He has been in the Thomas Embling Hospital since November 2015. Throughout his time in custody, Mr Woodruff has continued to experience psychotic symptoms, including believing that other prisoners are talking about him and interfering with his food.
Having been declared liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Act, s 41(1) of the Act requires that a further psychiatric report be prepared for the court on behalf of the Secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services. The s 41 report by Dr Ann Brennan was provided to the court on 24 August 2016.
Dr Brennan is a consultant psychiatrist employed by Forensicare. She has considerable experience in the treatment and assessment of persons found not guilty by reason of mental impairment.
She assessed Mr Woodruff on 12 August 2016. He was in the Argyle Unit, which is an acute psychiatric assessment and treatment unit at the Thomas Embling Hospital. As well as suffering from schizophrenia, she has diagnosed him as suffering from antisocial personality disorder.
Consistent with the other psychiatrists, Dr Brennan reports that Mr Woodruff has poor insight into his mental illness, or the need for him to take antipsychotic medication. As a result of the current medication regime, he is less floridly psychotic, and there has been some improvement in his condition. However, he still has periods in which psychotic symptoms are evident. His risk of interpersonal violence is still assessed as high, given ongoing verbal hostility and recent incidents of violence against another patient and a computer.
Dr Brennan’s opinion is that Mr Woodruff will require long-term mental health treatment, within a secure forensic inpatient setting. In addition to medication and treatment for his schizophrenia and personality disorder, he also needs to address longstanding problems with using illicit drugs and prescription medications.
It is clear that nothing less than a custodial supervision order would be appropriate in this case. The Act requires that the nominal term of that supervision order be 25 years.
The court has received a further certificate of available services (under s 47 of the Act) dated 24 August 2016, which states that the Thomas Embling Hospital will be able to provide the facilities and resources necessary to provide inpatient treatment to Mr Woodruff under a custodial supervision order.
Accordingly, I will order that:
(1) A custodial supervision order is made pursuant to s 26 of the Act.
(2) Mr Woodruff is committed to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, to remain at the Thomas Embling Hospital.
(3) Pursuant to s 28 of the Act, the nominal term of the supervision order is 25 years from 20 May 2013, which includes the declared period of 1,215 days (excluding today) during which Mr Woodruff has been held in custody or detained at the Thomas Embling Hospital.
---
0