DPP v Hansen

[2001] VSC 369

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1439 of 2001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

CRAIG JOSEPH HANSEN

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 September 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 September 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Craig Joseph Hansen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 369

---

Criminal law – sentencing – attempted murder – mental illness – accused a chronic paranoid schizophrenic – psychiatric condition aggravated by drug abuse – considerations applicable – detention in a mental health service as a security patient – s.93(1)(e) Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Ms S. Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A. Schwartz	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1. Mr Hansen, you may remain seated. 

1. Mr Hansen, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder.  On 7 August 2001 before Teague J you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder of your father, Mr Bernard Hansen and to a second count, of attempted murder of your mother, Mrs Denise Hansen.  They are both in their fifties.  You were born on 30 October 1969.  At the time of the offences you were 31 years of age, and you are now almost 32 years of age.

1. The two offences occurred in the family home on Friday 1 December 2000.  You had been living at your parents' home for some time, having returned from Sydney, a matter to which I shall return in a moment.  You had been in a deteriorating mental state for the weeks leading up to the offences, were not taking medication for your illnesses and progressively became more and more withdrawn from your parents. 

1. On Friday 1 December 2000 you were at the kitchen table at breakfast time.  Your father spoke to you about not wearing your boots inside.  That caused an unexpected  reaction by you in which you took a knife from the kitchen and first attacked your father from behind.  He was stabbed some four times in the back.  He collapsed to the floor and he tried to prevent you continuing your attack and you then kicked him a number of times to the head and body.  Your mother ran down the hallway to call the police on the telephone which was in the main bedroom.  You then stabbed your mother.  She continued to run away and sought to ring 000, but you stabbed her again and she then fell to the ground.  You then made a phone call to the emergency number, saying that you had killed your family.  You then waited outside for the police and emergency services to arrive.  When they arrived, you were cooperative with them and showed no violence towards them.  You were conveyed to the Mooroolbark police station, where you were interviewed, and I have read a transcript of the interview there conducted.  You were then later given hospital treatment.

1. At the Melbourne Magistrate's Court on 23 March this year, at the committal proceeding, you pleaded guilty to the two counts and have always been prepared to plead guilty to them.  You accept your responsibility for the offences that you committed that Friday morning. 

1. Both your parents have been affected by the attack you made upon them.  The medical reports in relation to your father of Dr Cobelas and Dr Mahady contained in the depositional material show that your father received four stab wounds to his back.  There were no stab wounds to his abdomen or to his chest, and there was no lung or organ injury.  The wounds were sutured with local anaesthetic, and tetanus and other care and management was provided to him.  In the case of your mother, the reports of Dr Kolt and Dr Malady show that she suffered two stab wounds over the right scapular region and one to her right hip.  Again, with local anaesthetic, provision was made for the treatment of those wounds by suturing and other appropriate means.  She remained in hospital for three further days.  Fortunately no further physical sequelae  of the injuries has occurred.   In victim impact statements, Exhibit B, before me, your father has stated how distressed he is by what occurred on that Friday morning, and that he still gets very emotional thinking about what occurred and the circumstances of it.  Your mother, in a victim impact statement by her, says she also has been emotionally affected by it.  Both your parents feel that proper treatment was not provided to you when it should have been and that that might well have averted the very unfortunate circumstances which occurred on that Friday.

1. You have, over a long period of time now, suffered from a medical condition of paranoid schizophrenia.  You have a number of prior convictions over an extensive period of time, from 1988 to 1994, in the various Magistrate's Courts.  A number of them are for offences of limited violence, including assault and causing wilful damage.  On a number of occasions you have been imprisoned, as well receiving wholly suspended sentences.  Notably at the Magistrate's Court at Lilydale on 30 August 1991, you were sentenced to four months' imprisonment for breaching an intervention order; and at the Magistrate's Court at Ringwood on 7 November 1991, one month's imprisonment for breaching the terms and conditions of an intervention order (five charges) and causing wilful damage (two charges).  You were imprisoned for four months on 10 March 1992 for breaching the conditions of an intervention order. 

1. You spent some three years in Sydney from the mid 1990's until 1998.  Prior to that, you had been a heavy user of cannabis, which had a deleterious effect upon your mental state.  When you went to Sydney, your drug use varied and escalated and ultimately you returned to the family home in suburban Melbourne, as I have stated, and it was in the family home when you were not using medication that the circumstances of the offences which bring you before me occurred.

1. I have had the benefit of a most comprehensive plea on your behalf by your counsel, Mr Shwartz.  Mr Shwartz has most helpfully placed before me the circumstances of the offences as you perceive them to be and your personal history as you recall it.  I note in particular that you are afflicted by the loss of your grandfather and are afflicted by the lack of contact with your only child.  Mr Shwartz has put and, in my view, correctly put that on the medical exhibits filed before me your prior convictions are rooted in your medical illness. 

1. I have before me a report of Dr Russell Finlay, psychiatric registrar at the Thomas Embling Hospital of 16 August 2001, which report stated that you were unfit to attend as was proposed in this court the next day for your appearance in connection with this case.

1. I have a report of Dr Mark Taylor, consultant psychiatrist, of 21 March 2001.  That gives a full review of the history of drug abuse which you have subjected yourself to and on p.5 of that report sets forth your mental state as assessed by him.  He there stated that in his professional view you have a psychotic illness being schizophrenia and that, in his view, medically it is appropriate that a hospital security order be granted in respect of your sentence.

1. I have a written report of Dr Lester Walton, psychiatrist, of 2 August 2001, where at p.2 he states your medical condition of schizophrenia and before me in evidence today Dr Walton has given evidence that you are fit to plead and to proceed to sentence in this case, that your condition is in remission but that that may be superficial and that you need the benefit of hospital treatment.  Dr Walton gave evidence that you suffer from chronic paranoid schizophrenia aggravated by drug abuse.  That is to say, the mental illness was not caused by drug use but was aggravated by it; as likewise says Dr Mark Taylor in his report of 21 March 2001 at p.5.

1. Your history further has been reviewed by Dr Chris Mileshkin, the clinical director at the Maroondah Hospital, in his report of 6 July 2001.  The history is there extensively set out.

1. Finally, Dr Ian Katz, consultant forensic psychiatrist at the Thomas Embling Hospital in a report of yesterday's date, 25 September 2001, has concurred that you have an acute psychotic illness.  Presently you are an inpatient of Dr Katz at the Acute Unit of the Thomas Embling Hospital.  Dr Katz, as with the previous doctors, diagnoses you with schizophrenia.  Under his medical direction, recently you have commenced the medication Quetiapine, an antipsychotic drug.  Dr Walton today has described your present condition as "in remission" but it remains to be seen whether the present improvement is more than superficial and whether it is sustainable. 

1. In his report of 25 September 2000, Dr Katz states that he "would support a hospital security order under s.93(1)(e) of the Sentencing Act." Attached to that report which is Exhibit C before me is a Form 9 certificate of Dr Katz, psychiatrist, for a hospital security order pursuant to Regulation 15 and a Form 10 report pursuant to Regulation 16.

1. In those circumstances I am satisfied pursuant to s.93(1) Sentencing Act 1991 of the necessary proofs that are required by that legislation, that is to say, the production of a certificate in the prescribed form by a psychiatrist that you are mentally ill and require treatment for the illness and that the treatment can be obtained by admission to and detention in an approved mental health service and that you should be admitted and detained for treatment as an involuntary patient for your health and for the protection of members of the public. I have received a report to that effect as I have stated, being Exhibit C, the report of Dr I. Katz of 25 September 2001.

1. As I said to counsel during the plea on your behalf, these are very serious offences.  The offence of attempted murder is the most culpable intent known to the criminal law.  You also have a number of prior convictions for limited violence which have involved some sentences of imprisonment. 

1. On the other hand, you did not take any weapon to the scene but used a knife that was in the kitchen and premeditation as normally it is viewed is not present in this case.  Further, you clearly have remorse for your offences and you have at all times accepted responsibility for the offences as you have demonstrated by pleading guilty at the committal and in this court.

1. The sentences to be imposed upon you are modified and moderated significantly by the medical considerations as to your mental state both at the time of the offences and presently; and indeed, as Mr Shwartz has put, also when you committed the prior offences.  I proceed upon the considerations set forth in R v. Tsiaras (1996) 1 V.R. 398 at 400. Yours is not a case in which general deterrence should play a part, because of your mental illness. However, specific deterrence is relevant in your case given your conduct on 1 December 2000 and your prior convictions.

1. In all the circumstances, having the benefit of the considerations so helpfully presented on your behalf by your counsel, I impose the following sentences. 

1. On Count 1, for attempted murder of your father, Mr Bernard Hansen, by way of sentence I order that you be detained in a mental health service as a security patient pursuant to s.93(1)(e) Sentencing Act 1991 for a period of eight years. In relation to the Count 2, the attempted murder of your mother, Mrs Denise Hansen, I make the same order: that by way of sentence you be detained in a mental health service as a security patient for a period of eight years. I direct that both of those orders and sentences be served concurrently, making a total period of eight years' detention, because both offences arose in the same circumstances and for the same reasons.

1. I declare pursuant to s.18(1) Sentencing Act 1991 that the period of 300 days presentence detention be reckoned as a period of detention or sentence already served.

1. I direct that you be detained for or serve a sentence of imprisonment for a minimum term of five years before you become eligible for parole. 

----------------