In the matter of N

[2017] QMHC 9

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

In the matter of N [2017] QMHC 9

PROCEEDING:

Reference

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

20 June 2017

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr ASB Davison and
Dr JJ Sundin

DETERMINATION:

1.   N was not of unsound mind at the time of any of the offending referred to the Court.

2.   N is permanently unfit for trial in relation to all the offending referred to the Court.

APPEARANCES:

CL Morgan for N

J Tate for the Chief Psychiatrist
AE Loode for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for N

Crown Law for the Chief Psychiatrist
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

 Note:

The transcript has been anonymised and N’s date of birth has been redacted.

HER HONOUR:  This is a reference in relation to N, born [in] 1994.  He is referred to the Court on 15 offences which are in the schedule to the reference and I will not go through them individually.  I have a series of reports from Dr Kulatunga, 17 May 2016, 20 July 2016, 23 May 2016 and 25 November 2016 – no, there is another one as well – 10 February 2017.  I also have a report from Dr Clark, 29 May 2017. 

I have to say, on the forensic issue of unsoundness, I don’t find Dr Kulatunga’s reports terribly helpful.  I prefer the reports of Dr Venugopalan, 21 November 2016 and 7 March 2017, both pursuant to section 422 of the Act.  Those reports give the view that N was not deprived of any relevant capacity and therefore is not unsound on any of the offences.  So I make that finding, that is, in relation to each of the offences, he was not of unsound mind. 

Nonetheless, both Dr Kulatunga’s reports and Dr Venugopalan’s reports are to the effect that this young man is permanently unfit and I make that finding.

The question, really, then is whether a forensic order should be made.  Dr Clark recommends against it in the report of May 2017 and both my assisting psychiatrists recommend against it and as I have expressed in the hearing of this matter, my instinct is also against it. 

I think that N’s treating team are doing a very, very good job and one, really, gets the impression as – well, I, really, got the impression as I read through Dr Kulatunga’s many reports that the treating team really do care for this young lad and they are trying their best with him.  I don’t think, therefore, that any forensic order could improve the care he is getting.  In terms of is there an advantage in obtaining Disability Services for N, I do not think a forensic order would lead to him obtaining anything more.  He lives in supported accommodation which is provided by Disability Services.  He has the Public Trustee and the Adult Guardian involved in his financial affairs. 

Then there’s the question, really, of public safety.  A lot of these offences are relatively minor.  Some are more serious and I think the most serious one is unlawful use of a motor vehicle and driving without a licence, which, really, was quite serious offending in that N stole a car in Bundaberg and drove it all the way to Brisbane.  But the type of that offending is a bit like a lot of the other offending – smashing the school window or breaching a curfew in contravention of his bail conditions.  I am not sure that a forensic order is going to make any of that sort of offending less likely.  As I said during the hearing of this matter, I think the thing that will make that kind of offending less likely is education and persuasion so that N’s behaviour conforms more to what society expects of him and I think, actually, a forensic order would be contraindicated there because I think the treating team is best left to pursue the tack they are already taking in relation to that.  So I’m not going to make a forensic order.