R v Eitzen
[2011] SASC 98
•16 June 2011
Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v EITZEN
[2011] SASC 98
Ruling of The Honourable Justice Sulan (ex tempore)
16 June 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY - DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL INFIRMITY
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT - KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING
Accused charged with one count of murder - accused made admissions that she inflicted the stab wound to the victim which caused his death - accused admitted objective elements of the offence - accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental incompetence - found that on the balance of probabilities the accused was mentally incompetent at the time of the alleged offence - found the accused was suffering from a mental impairment and did not know that her conduct was wrong.
R v EITZEN
[2011] SASC 98
SULAN J: Beverley Ellen Eitzen is charged with the murder of Peter Andrew Eitzen on 22 July 2009. She has pleaded not guilty on the ground of mental incompetence. It is not necessary for the purpose of these reasons to give a detailed account of what occurred on 22 July 2009. Peter Eitzen is Mrs Eitzen’s son. He was the younger of two boys and at the time of his death was aged 16.
Peter Eitzen was born with a severe intellectual and cognitive disability. In his early years, he was unable to walk and it took many years and much hard work for him to develop. Furthermore, it was difficult to toilet train him and his schooling was extremely difficult. As he grew older and stronger, Peter Eitzen became violent, particularly when he became frustrated. Throughout his life Mrs Eitzen was his primary carer. She had difficulty obtaining assistance because his disability was non-specific, and it was difficult to categorise him. Mrs Eitzen became increasingly desperate about his future, and it appears that she became severely depressed.
Dr O’Brien, who examined her, concluded that Mrs Eitzen had suffered from and experienced a variety of significant anxiety and depressive symptoms which had been developing for some time. She, however, did not recognise that she needed assistance for her own mental health. Dr O’Brien concluded that she had been suffering from an episode of major depression at the time of the death of her son. Dr O’Brien concluded that at the time of the act she was suffering major depression which, in his view, was a mental illness within the meaning of mental impairment.
On the day in question, Mrs Eitzen had decided to take her son’s life and take her own life. Up to that time her son had been increasingly more difficult to manage. He had been violent towards her and towards others. As he grew stronger it was more difficult to manage him.
In Mrs Eitzen’s own words, the morning upon which this incident occurred is very much a blank in her mind. She intended to drive her son and to kill them both by gassing them in the car. She attempted to try and anaesthetise her son. She administered an antihistamine tablet to him in the hope that it would calm him down. Eventually, he went to sleep in the car. She also had with her a knife. She attempted to feed a hose into the car and turn the ignition on. Her son became distraught and opened the window. She waited outside the car door for him to calm down. He eventually went to sleep. She then stabbed him in the neck and held him until he passed away. She had thoughts of committing suicide but, eventually, she drove to the police station and told the police that she had taken her son’s life.
Dr Tomasic, a forensic psychiatrist, also interviewed and examined Mrs Eitzen. She concluded that Mrs Eitzen suffered a severe and long depression, that she understood the nature and quality of her actions, but she was not able to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the wrongfulness of her action. She concluded that Mrs Eitzen was severely depressed with associated severe dissociative symptoms and some psychotic symptoms in the sense of being overwhelmed, hopeless and helpless in relation to ongoing care for her son and concerns for her son’s safety in the future. She was suicidal. Dr Tomasic concluded that there are grounds for a mental impairment defence based on Mrs Eitzen not having an adequate understanding of the wrongfulness of her actions.
Dr Raeside also examined Mr Eitzen. He concluded initially that she was mentally competent. However, having read Dr O’Brien’s report and having examined Mrs Eitzen again, he concluded that she was suffering from a major depressive illness, which is a severe mental illness, and significant impairment in her functioning. Considering the severity of that illness he concluded that she would have been unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the wrongfulness of her actions. He therefore supported a mental incompetence defence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions does not contend that the defence of mental incompetence is not available to Mrs Eitzen.
Having considered the various reports of the three psychiatrists and the other evidence relating to the events surrounding the death of Peter Eitzen, I am satisfied that, at the time of the act, Mrs Eitzen was suffering from a severe mental illness, being a major depressive episode which had developed over a number of years and that, at the time that she killed her son, she was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the wrongfulness of her actions.
I therefore conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the alleged offence Mrs Eitzen was mentally incompetent and, at the time of the conduct, she was suffering from a mental impairment and, in consequence of that, she did not know that her conduct was wrong.
0
0
0