Lu Re

[2011] QMHC 22

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Lu [2011] QMHC 22

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE PATIENT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

PROCEEDING NO:

0211/11

DELIVERED ON:

2 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 November 2011

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J M Lawrence
Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. That at the time of the alleged offence the defendant was of unsound as described in the Schedule to the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld);

2. That the defendant be detained, pursuant to a forensic order, to the Princess Alexandra Hospital Authorised Mental Health Service.

3. That limited community treatment is approved to commence immediately in the terms of the conditions set out in the submission of the defendant’s legal representatives 

COUNSEL:

S Crofton for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
A Lossberg for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

ANN LYONS J:

1. This is a reference by Legal Aid Queensland dated 26 July 2011 in relation to Ms Lucy Lu. Ms Lu faces one count of unlawful stalking on 14 November 2010.

1. The factual background to that offence is that Ms Lu commenced a civil action against Mr Andrew Petrou, the Queensland Police Service and the Australian Federal Police on 12 November 2009 seeking damages for loss of business, physical and mental injury. She claimed $22,000,000. On 22 January 2010 her application was dismissed.

1. In April 2009 Ms Lu engaged the services of a website developer. On 14 November 2010 Ms Lu used her website to send an email to Ms Y who is a lawyer for the Queensland Police Service. That email contained a reference to a website and a website link. When Ms Y opened the link, there was a paragraph on the website which stated:

“We are asking if any person seen the dead body of evil Constable X (constable of Wynnum Police Station) and her children, also Ms Y (the QPS solicitor) and her children will show us the photos, you will get reward money, each body in mention for one million. Please send detail and photos to PO Box XXX Sunnybank South Qld 4109 Australia.”

1. When Ms Lu was interviewed by police she stated she had no knowledge of the content of the website but she stated she had instructed a third party to write the content in an effort to affect the complainant and scare the complainant because Ms Lu felt unjustly dealt with in relation to the civil matter.

1. Ms Lu has been interviewed by a number of psychiatrists.

Reporting Psychiatrists

1. Dr Grant in a report dated 30 September 2011 indicates that Ms Lu’s account in relation to the offence was contradictory and disordered to him. She stated “I am not sure, the police always lie”. She then continued:

“The police lie. The police just want to kill me. The police came to my clinic and broke in, I had a good job, they pushed me out. Now I have no life, no money, all from police. I just want to run my clinic again. I cannot remember. I feel unsure about what happened. I don’t know why. I think I might have sent an email to her [Ms Y]. It may be true I sent to [Ms Y]. Sometimes I feel I really did. Sometimes I feel I never did it.”

1. Dr Grant stated that he considered that Ms Lu suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and the illness started some years ago. Dr Grant indicated that initially Ms Lu experienced anxiety, problems with concentration, headaches and other rather ill defined symptoms, but she went on to develop clear psychotic symptoms including systematised delusional beliefs about the Queensland Police. Dr Grant indicated that Ms Lu had frequent and constant auditory hallucinations, mainly involving police as well as some apparent visual hallucinations or delusions.

1. Dr Grant considered that Ms Lu’s psychotic beliefs drove various behavioural manifestations including trying to take illogical legal action in the Supreme Court to get compensation from police, as well as writing to politicians and other people seeking help with her grievances. He also considered that the psychotic beliefs drove the stalking offence for which she is charged.

1. Dr Grant considered that at the time of the stalking offence Ms Lu was suffering from a mental disease, namely paranoid schizophrenia and that was a disease relevant to s 27 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). He did not consider there was any evidence of intoxication or alcohol.

1. In Dr Grant’s opinion the psychotic illness was such that it deprived Ms Lu of the capacity to know she ought not do the act which involved the stalking. Dr Grant considered Ms Lu was driven by paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations to carry out the act in response to the situation as she saw it. She was clearly severely affected by her delusions at the time of the act.

1. In relation to whether there is a dispute of facts, Dr Grant considers that Ms Lu’s opinion fluctuates as to whether she is responsible for the offence or not. Dr Grant considers that any dispute of facts is secondary to Ms Lu’s mental condition.

1. In relation to whether Ms Lu is fit for trial, Dr Grant considers that currently Ms Lu’s mental state is quite fragile and she remains paranoid and distrustful. He also considers she is emotionally labile and her insight into her psychotic experiences is variable and partial. He also considers that her ongoing illness would make it difficult for her to give adequate and coherent instructions to her lawyer. Dr Grant also considered that Ms Lu is too unwell to endure her trial without the probability of experiencing more florid psychotic symptoms and de-compensating. Dr Grant considers Ms Lu is currently unfit for trial but that with adequate psychiatric treatment she should improve to the point where she would become fit for trial.

1. Accordingly, her unfitness is currently temporary. Dr Grant also considers that a forensic order is required, given her poor judgment and to ensure that her treatment needs are met and to protect Ms Lu and the community from any violent consequences which are related to her illness.

1. Dr Chung also assessed Ms Lu and in a report dated 17 February 2011 indicated that he considers Ms Lu is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Dr Chung considered that Ms Lu had experienced visual hallucinations and had also admitted to auditory hallucinations including hearing police talking about her and wanting to kill her. She also heard them conspiring to ruin her reputation. Dr Chung indicated that Ms Lu has a constant fear that someone wants to kill her and she has also had command hallucinations telling her to kill herself. He considers her insight is intermittently impaired by psychotic symptoms and her judgment is impaired by her psychotic symptoms.

1. Dr Schramm also saw Ms Lu, and in a report dated 2 June 2011 considered that Ms Lu developed a psychotic condition featuring auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions of a stable and symptomised nature involving police. Dr Schramm indicated that Ms Lu has been preoccupied with these ideas to the point where she has been most distressed and armed herself at night. He also indicated that she had made repeated allegations to authorities and taken matters to the Supreme Court and Federal Parliament. He also considered that her disturbance seems to have resulted in two acts which put her own safety in danger.

1. Dr Schramm noted that whilst Ms Lu’s behaviour came to the attention of a psychiatrist in the months leading up to the offence she was not firmly diagnosed with a psychotic illness.

1. Dr Schramm concluded that Ms Lu was suffering from a poorly treated, paranoid schizophrenic illness at the time of the offence of stalking which is a mental disease for the purposes of s 27 of the Criminal Code. Dr Schramm also indicated that Ms Lu would have been completely deprived of the capacity to know that this was wrong. Dr Schramm noted that Ms Lu had directed the complainant to the website under the delusional belief that the complainant was a representative of those delusionally identified persecutors responsible for ruining her livelihood and threatening her life. Dr Schramm considered her preoccupation with the persecution would have prevented her from appreciating that she was anything but completely justified in doing so.

1. Dr Schramm also indicated that any dispute of facts should be seen as a function of her mental illness. Dr Schramm also considered a forensic order was required to ensure she did not drop out of treatment. Dr Schramm also indicated that given her limited insight consideration should be given to depot medication.

Was Ms Lu of unsound mind?

1. Having considered the reports of the reporting psychiatrists as well as the views of the assisting psychiatrists I am satisfied that Ms Lu was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.  It is clear that as a result of this schizophrenic illness Ms Lu has a highly developed but delusional belief system involving the Queensland Police and she believed she was being persecuted by them. I am satisfied that her delusional thinking drove her actions and she was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong. She was accordingly deprived of the capacity to know she ought not to do the act.

1. I am satisfied that there are no issues of intoxication.

1. I am also satisfied that there is no dispute of facts and that any ambivalence about whether she did the act arises as a result of Ms Lu’s mental condition.

IsForensic order required? 

1. It is clear that the offences involved are serious offences.  Ms Lu is charged with stalking a lawyer working for the Queensland Police Service. It is also clear that Ms Lu has only partial insight into the true nature and extent of her illness and that there have been compliance issues in relation to medication in the past.

1. The advice of the assisting psychiatrists is that a forensic order is required.

1. I am satisfied that a forensic order is required given the seriousness of the initial charge and the continuing concern about risk to the safety of others.

1. There should be a forensic order in the terms of the draft tendered by Ms Lu’s legal representatives which allows limited community treatment to commence immediately.

CONDITIONS OF LIMITED COMMUNITY TREATMENT

1. That the patient reside at […] or at an address approved in advance in writing by the authorised psychiatrist;

1. That the patient present to Dr Fahil Al-Sudani at the PAH Continuing Care East, 519 Kessels Road, Macgregor, Qld at 10.15am on 3 November 2011 and attend all follow up appointments and inpatient care as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

1. That the patient comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication and other treatment;

1. That the patient must not use alcohol unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist;

1. That the patient abstain from all illicit drugs and must cooperate fully in random medical tests for those substances as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

1. That the patient not drive a motor vehicle unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist.