DPP v Ryan
[2006] VSC 504
•11 December 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1514 of 2006
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (VIC) |
| v |
| DANIEL CARL RYAN |
---
JUDGE: | COLDREY J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 DECEMBER 2006 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 11 DECEMBER 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v RYAN | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 504 | |
---
Criminal Law – Murder – s. 21(4) Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Trial by judge – Verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr C Hillman SC | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R Backwell | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
This is a hearing pursuant to s.21(2)(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 ("the Act"). This provision allows the trial judge to determine whether a person charged with an indictable offence was suffering from mental impairment at the time the conduct constituting the offence occurred.
The pre-requisite of the judge's role in hearing such a case without a jury is the agreement of the prosecution and defence that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment. (See s.21(4) of the Act.)
Mental impairment is defined in s.20(1) of the Act in these terms:
"The defence of mental impairment is established for a person charged with an offence if, at the time of engaging in conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that -
(a)he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b)he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong, that is, he or she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong."
Sub-section (2) of s.20 provides:
"If the defence of mental impairment is established, the person must be found not guilty because of mental impairment."
As it is the second limb of the definition of mental impairment that the Court is concerned with in this case, if the trial judge is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person charged with the offence was suffering from mental impairment at the relevant time, a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment may be recorded. If the trial judge is not so satisfied, an order that the charge be heard by a jury must be made.
In the present case, Daniel Carl Ryan was arraigned on the offence of the murder of his father, Reginald Ryan at Hillside on 23 February 2006. He pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment.
The facts surrounding this tragic episode have been outlined by Mr Hillman for the Crown and confirmed by the informant, Detective Acting Sergeant Mark Hatt. They are contained in detail in the depositional material. Consequently I need only refer to them briefly.
On 23 February of this year the accused was residing with his parents and sister, Kellie Ryan, at 16 Santolin Drive, Hillside. At about 7 a.m. on 23 February he attacked his father, Mr Reginald Ryan, as he was making his way down the hallway of the Hillside house. A struggle ensued and Ms Kellie Ryan, having been woken by the sound of loud banging, ran into the hallway where she observed Mr Ryan on hands and knees and the accused bent over him from behind with his hands in the area of Mr Ryan's midriff. He was saying "Die, you cunt."
Kellie Ryan, displaying great courage, went to her father's assistance. She endeavoured to get the accused off her father by gouging his eyes. On two occasions she was repelled by being flung across the hallway by the accused who bit her little finger. She also suffered a stab wound to her left lower leg, bruising and abrasions. Mrs Vicki Ryan was woken by Kellie shouting, "No, Daniel, get off him, get off him."
When she entered the hallway she saw the accused straddling her husband who was face down on the floor. She unsuccessfully attempted to push Daniel Ryan off him. Both women rang 000 requesting police attendance. As this was occurring Daniel Ryan walked out of the house. He walked up and down the street and at the time of his arrest he was observed on his hands and knees in a nearby driveway, his clothes covered with blood.
When asked what had happened he stated, "a homicide." When asked where the knife was, replied "inside". In fact a large kitchen knife had been retrieved by Mrs Ryan, who had hidden it in a cupboard under the kitchen sink to keep it away from her son.
Ms Kellie Ryan administered first aid to her father, but he died a short time later. He had sustained a number of stab wounds and incised injuries. Dr Malcolm Dodd, the pathologist, mentioned, in particular, stab wounds to the left chest and right chest, which had penetrated 160 and 165 millimetres respectively.
The cause of death was acute blood loss secondary to the stab wounds. Daniel Ryan, who was suffering from cuts to both hands, was taken to Sunshine Hospital. En route to the hospital the accused said he suffered from schizophrenia but had not taken his medication for three to four weeks.
While being treated by hospital staff he stated a number of things to a nurse, Narelle Capp. These included, "It's only now I remember one of the commandments is thou shalt not kill." When asked why he had hurt his father he responded that he was worried that his father was going to hurt someone important. He named that person as the actor, Angelina Jolie. He also made comments about the anti-Christ and hell.
Daniel Ryan was conveyed to the Homicide Squad offices where, after examination by Forensic Medical Officer, Dr Morris Odell, he was pronounced unfit to be interviewed. Dr Odell discerned a significant suicide risk. In a subsequent Magistrates' Court application for permission to conduct a physical examination, the accused stated, "Jesus, please forgive me".
The evidentiary material indicates that Daniel Ryan is currently aged 31 years. By the time he was aged 21, he was a very heavy user of cannabis and began developing signs of mental illness. This history is set out in the reports of psychiatrists Dr Danny Sullivan and Dr Mark Ryan dated 27 May and 8 November 2006 respectively. They are exhibits in this case and I direct that they remain on the Court file.
Since the history is set out in those documents, I do not need to detail it. It is sufficient to note that a diagnosis of schizophrenia was made as early as 1997 when the accused was age 21 and that thereafter the accused has had a number of admissions to acute psychiatric facilities.
Dr Danny Sullivan, who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, (Forensicare), having interviewed the accused and had access to past medical history, expressed the view:
"His diagnosis would appear to be one of paranoid schizophrenia as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (D.S.M.I.V. - T.R.) This is reflected in his thought disorder, bizarre, persecutory, grandiose religious delusions, auditory and visual hallucinations, and psychosocial impairment. The differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder would require prominent mood disturbance of mania or depression or both; although he has periods of low mood and anxiety, and grandiosity and irritability, these symptoms do not seem so prominent as to warrant that diagnosis."
Dr Sullivan went on to state:
"The justification given by Mr Ryan for killing his father is delusional and based upon ideas that he had to protect Angelina Jolie's baby which he thought was Jesus. He described the belief that his father was the devil. Mr Ryan reported that these beliefs arose in the few days preceding the attack. They are consistent with the themes he has previously exhibited when psychotic, with grandiose and religious and persecutory elements. His emotional response subsequently is incongruent and is not accompanied by insight into his actions. Furthermore, there is no significant evidence in the materials I have read that Mr Ryan and his father had a difficult relationship prior to the offence.
I would thus regard Mr Ryan as having available a mental impairment defence as set out in s.20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. He clearly understood that his actions involved stabbing his father and would result in his death, and thus knew the nature and quality of his conduct. However he believed these actions to be necessary due to his delusional beliefs, and in my opinion could not reason about these actions. His delusions precluded a rational appraisal of the situation and indeed persist. Mr Ryan lacked sense and composure on the morning of 23 February 2006."
Dr Mark Ryan, who was a consultant psychiatrist at Thomas Embling Hospital and was Mr Ryan's treating doctor, made a number of comments in his report to which I will briefly refer:
"Mr Ryan has a well established history of major mental illness which commenced about ten years ago. The most likely diagnosis in my opinion is paranoid schizophrenia as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (D.S.M. - 4 - T.R.). He had his first psychotic episode at the age of 20 and has had multiple admissions to acute inpatient units since then in the setting of exacerbations of both active psychotic symptoms as well as periods of depression and irritability. Whilst in the community, he has been maintained for lengthy periods as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act on Community Treatment Orders.
Mr Ryan's symptom profile has been consistent over many years. The characteristic symptoms of his active illness are delusional beliefs of a religious, spiritual and existential nature associated with hallucinations, particularly in the auditory domain, (God, devil, et cetera), that relate to these delusional beliefs. There has frequently been an affective component to his illness with either depressive features including suicidal ideas, or irritability, grandiosity and provocative behaviour. His management has been complicated by his poor insight into the nature of his illness, a reluctance to accept the diagnosis of major mental illness, variable compliance with medication and drug and alcohol misuse.
Mr Ryan had a significant relapse on psychotic symptoms in September 2005 and an admission to an acute inpatient unit in November 2005. In relation to the index offence, Mr Ryan had been non-compliant with medication for some four weeks prior to the index offence. He reports clear and typical psychotic symptoms in this period with evidence of religious and grandiose delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations. The most relevant aspects of these experiences were the beliefs that his father was the devil, an American actor was pregnant with baby Jesus, his father intended to harm this person and therefore the child, and that he had been placed in his family to protect Jesus. Auditory hallucinations confirmed and fomented these beliefs. He made a decision in the hours prior to the index offence to stop his father and stabbed him in this setting."
Dr Ryan went on to say:
"The criteria for a defence of mental impairment is described in s.20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. In my opinion, Mr Ryan did know the nature and quality of his conduct at the time of the offence. However, it is clear that he was actively psychotic at the time of the index offence and labouring under delusional beliefs, as described above, such that he did know that the conduct was wrong, that is, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong. I believe that Mr Ryan has a defence of mental impairment available to him."
Dr Ryan confirmed his opinion in evidence he gave to this Court.
Having considered the facts surrounding the death of Reginald Ryan, and having had the benefit of the uncontradicted expert opinions of Drs Sullivan and Ryan, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence establishes a defence of mental impairment. Accordingly, I direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded on the charge of murder.
---
0
0
0