DPP v Notas

[2006] VSC 141

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1593 of 2005

DPP

v

PAUL NOTAS

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 April 2006
DATE OF RULING:	10 April 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Notas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 141

---

Criminal Law – Mental Impairment – No issue as to application of statutory criteria – Verdict directed without a jury – Hospital bed unavailable immediately – Interim orders

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms. S. Pullen S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Notas	Mr. R. Melasecca	Rob Melasecca

HIS HONOUR:

1. Paul Notas has been presented to this court on charges of arson and murder arising out of events that occurred on 13 March 2005.  He was charged with murdering his mother, Dorothy Notas, and with destroying by fire a house belonging to her.

1. Prior to and at the time of those events, Paul Notas was suffering from, and had been treated for, mental health problems. At an early stage in the investigative process, it became apparent that a defence of mental impairment under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried ) Act 1997 (“the Act”) was likely to be raised. At different stages, he had been treated by psychiatrists, Drs Deborah Wood and Lester Walton, from whom opinions were later sought. Both expressed the opinion that a mental impairment defence under the Act ought to apply. 

1. Under the amendments to Section 22 of the Act inserted by Act No. 77 of 2005, in operation from 23 November 2005, where prosecution and defence agree that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, and the trial judge is satisfied that the evidence has established the defence, the trial judge need not, as in the past, empanel a jury to decide the issue, but may direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded.

1. The evidence led before me consisted of evidence from three witnesses, Senior Detective David Campbell, Dr Wood and Dr Walton.   Senior Detective Campbell spoke to the accuracy of the account opened to the Court by Ms Pullen S.C., prosecuting.  He had collated statements from sources including the brother of Paul Notas, the fire officers who attended the fire, and several neighbours, ambulance officers and police officers who had spoken with Paul Notas after the fire.  Both Dr Wood and Dr Walton had treated Paul Notas after 13 March 2005, Dr Wood at the Melbourne Assessment Prison, and Dr Walton at Port Philip Prison.

1. The substance of the evidence was as follow.  Paul Notas had always lived with his mother at 60 Dundee Street, Reservoir.  In August 2002, he had been treated for mental health problems at The Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre.  At that time, he had voiced beliefs including: that other people could read his mind; that people were trying to kill him; and, that his mother was a demon.  He had subsequently been under medication prescribed by his general practitioner, Dr Shepherd.  It seems that consultations, and hence the prescriptions and taking of medications, had not continued for long into 2005.

1. There was before me some evidence of Paul Notas having been a user of first cannabis and later amphetamine. Shortly after the events of 13 March 2005, he had told a psychiatric nurse that he regularly used up to one gram a day of amphetamine up to and including the night of 12 March 2005.  That illegal drug use was taken into account by Drs Wood and Walton, in arriving at their opinions.

1. At about 7.20 p.m. on Saturday 12 March 2005, Paul Notas attended at the Reservoir Police Station of his own volition.  He was upset and crying.  He complained about seeing a golf ball in the room and that he could hear people speaking to him. Enquiries revealed that he was known to members of the local after hours Crisis Assessment Team. A call was made to his mother and a brother.  Those two came to the Police Station and took him home.  Only some hours later, shortly after 3 a.m., Paul Notas called for the Fire Brigade to attend at 60 Dundas Street.  He was located near to the house wearing only a shirt, and in an agitated state.  The body of his mother was found in the remains of the fire.  The autopsy revealed that she was dead, not from the effects of fire, but from the effects of chest and other injuries indicative of an assault or assaults prior to the fire.  When spoken to by police, Paul Notas said a number of things which included:  that his mother was a witch; that his mother breathed through him;  that he had to get his breathing and heart back; that he had lit the fire using a lighter and tissues to light his bed sheets; that he believed that he had to put his mother in the fire; that he had dragged her from her bedroom; that he folded her in half; that he dragged her into his bedroom where the fire was; and, put her on the fire.

1. Both Dr Wood and Dr Walton expressed the opinion that Paul Notas was suffering from schizophrenia as at 13 March 2205, and that he was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that he could not then reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

1. I was satisfied on the evidence to the requisite standards that the elements of the offences of murder and arson, and the statutory requirements as to the defence of mental impairment, had been established.  Accordingly, I was satisfied that I should direct, in the terms of the Act, on the charges both of murder and of arson, that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded.

1. I was informed that a bed at the Thomas Embling Hospital was not at present available for Paul Notas.  That was a concern to me, and the more so in view of the opinions expressed by Dr Walton: that Paul Notas had responded exceptionally well to treatment; that he had been, while on remand, a model prisoner; and, that it would be inhumane if he were to become a mainstream prisoner.  Mr Melasecca, who appeared before me as the lawyer for Paul Notas, had foreshadowed the possibility of my being asked to make a non-custodial supervision order, in order that Paul Notas could be released into the custody of his large family, they being unanimously supportive of him, despite the events of 13 March 2005.  I indicated that the making of such an order could only be considered a realistic option if the Thomas Embling Hospital could not provide a bed within a reasonable period.  I have assumed that the prompt provision of a bed would occur.  Paul Notas may be a forensic patient whose condition is relatively non-serious compared with other forensic patients.  But his actions only a little over twelve months ago were very serious, and there are issues as to illegal drug use and the continuing taking of medication that could be addressed in hospital for perhaps a period of time that might have to be measured in months.

1. I made an order in the form that has recently become routine, albeit with considerable regret on my part, and on the part of those determining who can be admitted to the hospital.  In short, there are too few beds at the Thomas Embling Hospital for both forensic patients and those prisoners and remandees who have serious mental health problems requiring urgent attention.  I ordered: that Paul Notas be liable to a custodial supervision order; that he be remanded in custody pending receipt by the Court of a certificate under s.47 of the Act; that he be transferred into hospital on the day of receipt of the certificate; that the nominal term of the supervision order is twenty five years; and, that the proceedings be listed for hearing on or shortly after 26 April 2006, if a satisfactory certificate has not been received before that day.