MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
JKO v Queensland Police Service [2018] QMC 4
PARTIES:
JKO
(Defendant/Applicant)
v
Queensland Police Service
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
ROCK 6388/17 and 6410/17
DIVISION:
Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:
Application for dismissal of complaints – Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
16 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
23 February 2018
MAGISTRATE:
J R Clarke
ORDER:
Complaints dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
Application for dismissal of charges pursuant to s 172 Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) opposed. Impact of intoxication on mental health state.
SOLICITORS:
Mr D. Winning for the Defendant
Ms J. King for Police Prosecutions Corps
JKO is currently 33 years old. She has endured a long history of mental illness, and has an established diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, with a differential diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. She has been receiving treatment from a Psychiatrist in private practice for the last 13 years, following seven admissions to the Rockhampton Mental Health Inpatient Unit between 2003 and 2005, when she underwent Electroconvulsive Therapy.
JKO attempted suicide in 2005 following the birth of her child (whom her parents care for); she has had sporadic contact with the Mental Health Unit Acute Care Team since that incident.
Immediately following the alleged commission of the offences the subject of this application, JKO was again hospitalized as an inpatient for a period of about three weeks at the Rockhampton Mental Health Inpatient Unit.
JKO has a history of illicit drug use of cannabis, MDMA (ecstacy) and amphetamines since the age of 16. At the time of mental health assessments on 15 November and 18 December 2017 she disclosed having smoked “one point of ice” (0.1 gram of amphetamine) at lunchtime on the day before the alleged offending.
It is common ground between the defence and the prosecution JKO “was, or appears to have been, of unsound mind when the offence(s) were allegedly committed”, in accordance with s 172 Mental Health Act 2016(Qld) (the Act); the issue is whether her voluntary ingestion of drugs, and possible intoxication contributed to any extent to her capacity. If it did, the defendant is not able to rely on s 172 of the Act for an order dismissing the charge.
The mental health assessment reports [1] were completed by a Clinical Nurse Consultant and a Senior Mental Health Clinician, and reviewed by a Consultant Psychiatrist, as contemplated by the Act and Practice Direction.[2]
[1]Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 (as amended).
[2]Magistrates Court Practice Direction 1 of 2017.
In those assessments, JKO accepted the basic allegations grounding the six alleged offences. The offences on 12 October 2017 involved taking drinks out of a fridge at a Rockhampton service station, which she started to drink, saying someone would come and pay for them, sitting to wait for that person (she thought perhaps a family member), before walking out saying she didn't have any money. She left the store and pushed over some bins, re-entered and immediately again left the store, pushing more bins…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jko v Queensland Police Service and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] QMC 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the applicant's intoxication at the time of the offence was so severe as to impair their mental state to the extent that they could not be held criminally responsible. This involved assessing the medical evidence and expert opinions provided by both parties to ascertain the impact of intoxication on the applicant's mental health. The court also needed to consider the statutory provisions of section 172 of the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) and its application to the facts of this case.
The court found that the applicant's intoxication, while significant, did not impair their mental state to the extent required by section 172 of the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld). The evidence presented indicated that the applicant was capable of understanding their actions and their wrongfulness, despite their intoxicated state. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the dismissal of charges and upheld the criminal charges against the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Complaints dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.