R v Griffiths
[2020] ACTSC 51
•13 March 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Griffiths |
Citation: | [2020] ACTSC 51 |
Hearing Date(s): | 12 February 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 13 March 2020 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment is entered. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY WAY OF MENTAL IMPAIRMENT – aggravated burglary – threat to kill – whether the Court considers a verdict of not guilty by way of mental impairment is appropriate – s 321(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether the accused was mentally impaired pursuant to s 28 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 308, 312 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 30, 34, 321 Mental Health Act 2016 (QLD) s 668 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68C |
Cases Cited: | Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250 Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500 R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107 R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697 The Queen v Ardler [2004] ACTCA 4; 144 A Crim R 552 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Stephen Anthony Griffiths (Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel D Sahu Khan (Crown) A Trotter (Accused) |
| Solicitors ACT DPP (Crown) Legal Aid (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 242 of 2019 |
Loukas-Karlsson J
Introduction
Offences
On 12 February the accused pleaded not guilty by way of mental impairment to the following offences allegedly committed on 2 July 2019:
(a) Aggravated burglary (offensive weapon) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC2019/7408). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine, or both.
(b) Unlawful confinement of John Parker contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CC2019/7409). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years.
(c) Threat to kill John Parker being reckless as to whether Mr John Parker would fear that the threat would be carried out contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act (CC2019/7410). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years.
(d) Dishonestly appropriate property, namely car and house keys, a pocketknife, tin snips, and an Australian Government pension letter belonging to John Parker with the intention of permanently depriving him of the property contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CC2019/7411). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years, a fine, or both.
In accordance with s 321(2)(b) of the Crimes Act, “the prosecution agrees to the entering” of the special verdicts (T 9.25-27).
Consequently, pursuant to s 321(2)(a) of the Crimes Act, the Court must consider whether verdicts of not guilty because of mental impairment are appropriate.
Facts
On the morning of 2 July 2019, John Parker (the complainant) departed his Ainslie residence and drove to the shops at Dickson. At around 11:30am he returned to the house and entered through the locked front door. The complainant’s residence is a two-bedroom apartment in Ainslie. He had lived there for approximately 3 years and lives alone.
Immediately upon entering his home, the complainant observed Stephen Griffiths (the accused) coming out of his bedroom holding a star picket in both hands. The complainant had never seen the accused before and did not know why he was inside his home. The accused told the complainant to sit down in a chair in the loungeroom. Fearing for his safety the complainant complied with the request and sat down.
The accused began pacing around the loungeroom, mumbling about God. The complainant could not understand what the accused was mumbling. The complainant attempted to get away, but the accused would not let him up.
While the accused was pacing the complainant noticed several personal photographs on the floor which were usually kept inside a cupboard. The accused began going through the photographs and began questioning the complainant about who was in the photographs and where they lived. The accused was still holding the star picket in one hand.
The accused then produced a butcher’s knife with a 20 cm blade from behind his back which he had taken from a cupboard in the complainant’s kitchen. He threatened the complainant, stating “one of us is going to die today, you or me, mainly you” and asked him whether he had been stabbed before. The accused was approximately 1 metre away from the complainant at this time and was holding the knife with the blade pointed at the complainant. This caused the complainant to fear for his life. He thought he was going to die.
The accused told the complainant to get up and walk to the courtyard at the back of the residence. Once they were in the courtyard the accused started looking at the roof of the house and indicated that he wanted to get inside of the roof. The accused then walked back inside the house, putting the knife back into his pants and locking the complainant in the courtyard.
A short time later, the accused asked the complainant if he wanted any water. The complainant replied that there was only water for his dog outside. The accused said that he had water in his car and proceeded to walk towards a dark coloured BMW X5 motor vehicle that was parked at the end of the complainant’s driveway. The vehicle belonged to the accused.
The complainant then managed to remove his mobile phone from the pocket of his pants and dial ‘000’ and requested police attendance and then left the line open. Police then called the complainant back and asked whether he required assistance. As the accused had returned to within earshot, the complainant pretended he was on his phone with a friend. When asked whether he needed police assistance he responded “yeah, yeah that’s it” and then put the phone down without hanging up.
The accused then unlocked the door to the courtyard to let the complainant back inside the house, grabbing his left arm to prevent him from escaping. The accused then began to rant and rave about various and differing topics that the complainant could not understand. At some stage the knife was left on the loungeroom couch.
At approximately 12:30pm, police attended the complainant’s home and observed the accused pacing around the front yard carrying a wooden walking stick before losing sight of him. The complainant then exited the front door of his residence in an extremely distressed state asking police for help. The complainant was visibly shaking at this time.
The accused then exited the front door where he stated “I give up” while showing his empty hands. At some stage the accused also said to the police that “the spirits have brought me here today”, and other statements to the following effect:
(a) “I don’t know what my spirit level is, the spirits are at the house”;
(b) “The devil is outside”;
(c) “If I go to the park I will choke and die”;
(d) “God is here”;
(e) “The power lines are affecting my spirit”;
(f) “God told me to preach from Ayers Rock”;
Police searched the accused and found the following items, all of which belonged to the complainant:
(a) A set of house and car keys;
(b) A pocketknife with a brown coloured handle;
(c) Tin snips; and
(d) An Australian Government letter addressed to the complainant.
Police also located the accused’s wallet, identifying him from a NSW Driver’s Licence. The accused was subsequently arrested and conveyed to the ACT Watch House. Police checks confirmed the BMW motor vehicle was registered to the accused.
Once police had left, the complainant observed that his residence had been ransacked, and items were strewn all over the place. A recycling bin was inside his bedroom and the manhole cover to the roof had been pushed up into the roof cavity.
The accused has been in custody since that time. He had spent 225 days in custody as at the date of the special hearing on 12 February 2020.
Exhibits
The following documents were tendered and marked as exhibits:
(a) Australian Federal Police record of conversation between Constable Bourner and the complainant on 2 July 2019;
(b) Statement of Constable Bourner dated 15 August 2019.
(c) Statement of Constable Allan dated 30 August 2019.
(d) Statement of First Constable Cunningham dated 31 August 2019.
(e) Agreed statement of facts in relation to this matter.
(f) Psychiatric report of Dr Richard Furst dated 7 September 2019.
(g) Psychiatric report of Dr Ken Arthur dated 7 March 2019.
(h) Canberra Hospital ‘Patient Progress Reports’ dated 7 July 2019 to 12 July 2019 and 17 December 2019 to 22 January 2020.
(i) The accused’s criminal history in the ACT and NSW.
(j) A ‘Treating Clinician’s Report’ written by the accused’s clinical manager with Forensic Health Services at the Alexander Maconochie Centre dated 19 November 2019.
Procedure and statutory scheme relating to mental impairment
Section 321 of the Crimes Act provides for the entry of a special verdict:
321 Supreme Court—plea of not guilty because of mental impairment
(1) This section applies if an accused pleads not guilty because of mental impairment to an indictable offence before the Supreme Court.
(2) The Supreme Court must enter a special verdict that the person is not guilty of the offence because of mental impairment if—
(a) the court considers the verdict appropriate; and
(b) the prosecution agrees to the entering of the verdict.
In R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 at [13] Refshauge J set out the appropriate procedure as follows:
(1) The accused should be arraigned in the usual way.
(2) If they plead not guilty by reason of mental impairment, the Crown should be asked if it agrees to the entry of a special verdict. Such agreement need not be in writing.
(3) If not, the trial proceeds in the usual way (as in for example, R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242).
(4) If so, then the court must consider whether a verdict is appropriate.
(5) The Crown must prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed the physical acts of the offence charged which would constitute the offence if done intentionally and voluntarily and with any particular fault element, such as intent or knowledge, specified as an element of the offence, but is not required to negative any such fault element, other than where objective evidence raises such an issue, such as mistake, accident, lack of specific intent, or knowledge of the particularity necessary to constitute the offence that is an element of the offence itself, or self-defence, in which case the Crown must negative that issue beyond reasonable doubt: R v Ardler [2004] ACTCA 4; 144 A Crim R 552 at [90]
(6) Such evidence may be adduced in statements tendered and admitted into evidence if consent is given to such a procedure under ss 148 or 190 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).
(7) The Court must be provided with such expert evidence as would satisfy it that the accused is mentally impaired, sufficient to meet the criteria set out in s 28 if the Criminal Code, which may also be achieved by the tender of reports from appropriately qualified medical experts. This does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, however, needs to be satisfied that the mental impairment has been made out to a standard sufficient to justify the potential significant interference with the freedom and liberty of the accused.
(8) Once these matters are satisfied, it would appear that this would meet the criteria that the entry of a special verdict was appropriate.
The next two questions which require consideration are, firstly, whether the accused was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the offences, and secondly, whether that mental impairment had an effect as described in s 28(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mental impairment is defined and dealt with in sections 27 and 28 of the Criminal Code as follows:
27 Definition—mental impairment
(1) In this Act:
mental impairment includes senility, intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage and severe personality disorder.
…
28 Mental impairment and criminal responsibility
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, when carrying out the conduct required for the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that—
(a) the person did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) the person did not know that the conduct was wrong; or
(c) the person could not control the conduct.
(2) For subsection (1) (b), a person does not know that conduct is wrong if the person cannot reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as seen by a reasonable person, is wrong.
(3) The question whether a person was suffering from a mental impairment is a question of fact.
(4) A person is presumed not to have been suffering from a mental impairment.
(5) The presumption is displaced only if it is proved on the balance of probabilities (by the prosecution or defence) that the person was suffering from a mental impairment.
…
Approach to the evidence and directions in a special hearing by judge alone
All of the evidence was admitted by consent (T 4.29-35; T 8.20-30). There was no sworn evidence or cross-examination of any witnesses. The special hearing is a trial by judge alone and must be conducted in accordance with s 68C of the Supreme Court Act1933 (ACT) (the Supreme Court Act).
Section 68C of the Supreme Court Act states:
68C Verdict of judge in criminal proceedings
(1) A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury.
(2) The judgment in criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone must include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.
(3) In criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone, if a territory law requires a warning or direction to be given, or a comment to be made, to a jury in the proceedings, the judge must take the warning, direction or comment into account in considering his or her verdict.
A judgment in a trial by judge alone requires the Court to include the principles of law that it will apply, and the findings of fact upon which it relies: R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 at [22]. It is necessary for the Court to expose the reasoning process linking the principles of law with the findings of fact and justify the process and ultimately the verdict that is reached: Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250; R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107.
The Court is required to take into account certain general directions. These are fundamental rules which are designed to ensure than an accused person receives a fair trial which is conducted according to law: See R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137; R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75.
In R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 (at [13]-[22]), Nield AJ set out the directions and considerations that should be given at a judge alone trial. These considerations were cited favourably by Refshauge J in R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 at [8]. There are a number of accepted principles, including the following:
A criminal trial is governed by rules. The fundamental rules are designed to ensure that an accused person receives a fair trial according to law. The fundamental rules which govern a criminal trial are these.
The Crown bears the onus, burden or obligation, to use three interchangeable words, to prove the guilt of the accused. The Crown has asserted that the accused has committed a criminal offence therefore the Crown must prove that the accused committed that offence. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit that offence.
The level or standard of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found to be guilty of the offence unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the offence with which he stands charged unless and until the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. If the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, then he loses the presumption of innocence and the appropriate verdict is guilty. If, however, the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, then he remains presumed to be innocent and the appropriate verdict is not guilty.
Elements of the offences
There was no dispute between the prosecution and counsel for the accused as to the presence of the physical elements of each charge (T 6.35-40)
Each of the charges is constituted by elements which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of the aggravated burglary offence are:
(a) The accused entered a building;
(b) The accused did so as a trespasser; and
(c) The accused intended to:
(1) Commit theft of any property in the building; or
(2) Commit an offence that involves causing harm, or threatening to cause harm, to anyone in the building; or
(3) Commit an offence in the building that involves causing damage to property and is punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or longer.
(d) The previous 3 elements are present and:
(1) The accused was in company with 1 or more people; or
(2) The accused had an offensive weapon with him.
The elements of the unlawful confinement offence are:
(a) The accused confined or imprisoned a person; and
(b) That confinement or imprisonment was unlawful.
The elements of the threat to kill offence are:
(a) The accused made a threat to another person to kill that other person or any third person:
(1) Intending that other person to fear that the threat would be carried out; or
(2) Being reckless whether or not that other person would fear that the threat would be carried out;
(b) That the threat was made by the accused:
(1) Without lawful excuse; and
(2) In circumstances in which a reasonable person would hear that the threat would be carried out.
The elements of the dishonestly appropriate property offence are:
(a) The accused dishonestly appropriated property belonging to someone else;
(b) With the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property.
Consideration
On the basis of the evidence in this case, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the physical acts which constituted the four counts on the indictment. I am satisfied that the necessary elements are established beyond reasonable doubt. See: The Queen v Ardler [2004] ACTCA 4; 144 A Crim R 552; Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR490; R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697.
Was the accused under a mental impairment at the time of the offences?
If the accused was, at the time of the commission of the offences, suffering from mental impairment as provided for in s 28 of the Criminal Code and if the physical elements of the offence have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a special verdict must be entered: R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 at [62].
The prosecution tendered a number of documents relating to the accused’s mental health. These include psychiatric reports of Dr Richard Furst dated 7 September 2019 (the Furst Report) and Dr Ken Arthur dated 7 March 2019 (the Arthur Report).
The Furst report was written with respect to the accused’s mental state at the time of the charges relating to 2 July 2019 which are currently before this Court. The Arthur report was produced in response to a Court Examination Order pursuant to section 668 of the Mental Health Act 2016 (QLD) made by the Queensland Mental Health Court in relation to prior offences in that jurisdiction.
Patient progress reports from Canberra Hospital relating to periods after the accused had been taken into custody were also tendered.
Also tendered were statements of the Australian Federal Police officers who responded to the complainant’s emergency call on 2 July 2019 which set out the evidence that they would have been prepared to give in court as a witness. Also included in evidence was a record of conversation with the complainant made by Constable Bourner on 2 July 2019. These statements and the record of interview are in agreement with the facts as set out in paragraphs [4]-[18] supra.
Accused’s Background
At the time of the offences the accused was 47 years old. He has a 12-year-old daughter of a previous de-facto relationship of 8 years duration, and a 4-year-old daughter of a separate relationship. He also has a 15-year-old stepson. He resided in Batlow and was working as a cleaner in Cabramurra until the week prior to his arrest.
The accused was born in Wagga Wagga and is the only child from his parent’s union. His parents separated when he was 2-3 years of age. The accused reported that his biological father had a violent nature and was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder when admitted to a psychiatric hospital in the 1970s. The accused’s grandfather was also diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder.
His mother remarried, his stepfather being a nuclear physicist. His stepfather’s work required frequent moves, including living in the United States and Indonesia. He had three older stepsiblings. Both his mother and stepfather are now deceased.
The accused attended primary school in Canberra, and various high schools as a consequence of his stepfather’s work in the United States and NSW. He completed a Bachelor of Science, majoring in Forestry at the Australian National University and worked for the Forestry Department of NSW between 1994 and 2013.
The accused has a history of self-doubt, low self-esteem and negative feelings which date back to the age of 17-18 years. He held concerns from that age about developing bipolar disorder at the time and had counselling with a clinical psychologist. He reported periods of depression in 2013 after he stopped working for the Forestry Department, and again in 2015. He was seeing a psychologist between 2009 and 2010 in Tumut, and then a General Practitioner in Batlow. The accused does not abuse alcohol or drugs and is prosocial.
The accused received an inheritance approximately 5 years ago from his mother and stepfather, purchasing a property in Batlow and creating what he described as a “Garden of Love”.
The accused experienced an apparent manic episode in 2016, believing he was “going to be Jesus Christ” and believing he was going to be “put on a cross and crucified”. He was stopping cars to warn them about the “end of days” in outback South Australia in response to his grandiose and religiose delusions. He was admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital in Adelaide for a period of 30 days, consistent with symptoms of bipolar affective disorder and having a manic episode with psychotic features. He was discharged on an involuntary treatment order in South Australia which ran for a 12-month period and involved follow-up and compliance with anti-psychotic medications. The accused reported adhering to that treatment order without accepting that he had a mental disorder.
Another apparent manic episode occurred in Cairns in 2017 and the accused was admitted to a psychiatric unit at Cairns for treatment and evaluation. His treating psychiatrist at the time was Dr Ken Arthur. The Arthur report was prepared in relation to this incident and the accused’s mental health generally for the Queensland Mental Health Court.
Evidence of Dr Furst in relation to the current offences
Dr Richard Furst assessed the accused via audio-link at the AMC on 31 July 2019. He reported the following in relation to the circumstances leading up to and including the 2 July 2019 incident.
The accused claimed that in the week prior to the 2 July 2019 incident he was “developing ideas” and that he “felt the world… all our leaders… are media followers. There was an opportunity for God to reveal to the world he was coming… the next person to take over as the only leader…” (Furst Report p. 4)
The accused told Dr Furst that had been to a Christian conference at Wagga Wagga on the weekend prior to his alleged offending. He had limited sleep and had not been taking much medication over the previous 1-2 weeks. He stated that on the day prior to his arrest, he was holding an iron bar beneath a 130,000V powerline and that he “put his trust in a guidance device”.
The accused reported an elevated mood and feeling “driven” at the time, which Dr Furst assessed as being indicative of mania. The accused said:
…God had indicated in me to see and be at particular locations… interesting phenomena…a blood moon… an eclipse during the day… In Australia, I thought someone was anointed to take over the world… I didn’t mind if I lived or died… I felt like I was potentially the reborn Jesus… to go through the suburbs contemplating suicide… on the new rest of Earth.
Dr Furst reported that the accused described being in “semi remote control” and that he was led to the unit in Ainslie. Other apparently bizarre thinking at the time included believing his thoughts were being “telecommunicated” to people in Wagga Wagga. The accused also said:
I thought that I’m The One. I’ve got Satan locked into my earthly body. I spiritually found that place. I felt suffocated when I tried to leave… there was something I had to discover there. I felt something had to happen there. Satan was involved.
Dr Furst noted during the assessment that the accused presented as expansive in his speech. He had grandiose and religiose delusions and religiose preoccupations. The accused’s mood was elevated and was largely “insightless” in relation to his apparent mania and bipolar disorder.
Dr Furst reported that in his opinion, at the time of the commission of the alleged offences the accused suffered a pre-existing mental impairment as per the definition of s 27 of the Criminal Code. He was also of the opinion that this mental impairment fell within DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, specifically, “Bipolar Affective Disorder, Manic Episode with Psychotic features” (Furst Report p. 7). Bipolar Affective Disorder is a mood disorder characterised by one or more episodes of abnormally elevated energy levels and mood, cognitive disturbance, and one or more depressive episodes. Individuals can have a mixed state, in which features of both depression and mania occur at the same time. Extremes of mania and depression can lead to psychotic symptoms including delusions and hallucinations. Episodes are typically separated by periods of normal mood (Furst Report p. 8).
Dr Furst stated that the accused was likely aware of the nature and quality of his alleged conduct, however he was suffering from a relapse of his bipolar affective disorder with symptoms of mania and related psychotic symptoms at the time. Dr Furst noted the similarities between the current alleged offending and his previous actions when suffering from acute mania and religiose/grandiose delusions in South Australia in 2016 and Queensland in 2017. He reported that:
Of particular relevance is a pattern of bizarre, disinhibited, and aggressive behaviour towards strangers on all three occasions of mania which were driven by various delusional beliefs about the world coming to an end, paranoid delusions about surveillance, and grandiose beliefs that that he is either a prophet or a reincarnation of Jesus Christ with a special purpose to fulfil for the sake of the World (Furst Report p. 9).
In Dr Furst’s opinion, the accused’s actions in entering the unit at Ainslie on 2 July 2019 were driven by his acute mania and related delusional beliefs. He believed that he had a special purpose to accomplish, that he was anointed by God, and that the fate of the World was at stake. Therefore, at the time of the alleged conduct the accused “unequivocally believed that what he was doing was right… [and] was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct, as seen by a reasonable person, was wrong” (Furst Report p. 9).
Dr Furst also formed the opinion that the accused “was acutely manic, was psychotic, and had lost insight into being unwell” and that the accused’s description of himself as being “led to a place” in a state of “semi remote control” were suggestive of a lack of self-control.
The features outlined above led Dr Furst to form the opinion that the accused has the mental impairment defence available to him within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Code.
Dr Furst’s report also made a number of recommendations with respect to the accused’s future treatment and rehabilitation. He recommended that the accused remain under the care of mental health services, including regular reviews with a psychiatrist and nurse, who can monitor his mental health state and provide necessary counselling and medication. Dr Furst notes that when the accused is released from custody, he will require a long-term involuntary treatment order in relation to community-based management, as he is at high risk of relapsing into mania and psychosis without these measures.
Evidence of Dr Ken Arthur
The Arthur report is dated 7 March 2019 and relates to an incident and related offences which occurred in Queensland in August 2017. Dr Furst also had access to this report when making his more recent assessment of the accused (Furst Report p. 2). It records the offender’s biographical details in similar terms to the Furst report (Arthur Report p. 2).
The incident which occurred in Queensland which led to his arrest and hospitalisation is broadly similar to that which occurred in Ainslie in 2019. The accused had come to police attention after entering a property and threatening the owners with a jemmy bar. He was subsequently arrested and brought to Cairns Mental Health Unit under an Emergency Examination Authority with acute behavioural disturbance thought to be consistent with psychotic mania. He was charged with wilful damage, unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, enter premises and 2 counts of common assault. These charges were brought before the Queensland Mental Health Court (Arthur Report p. 12).
Dr Arthur gave a provisional diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder with symptoms of mania including grandiosity, reduced need for sleep, disorganised behaviour, hyper-religiosity and mood-congruent psychotic symptoms. Dr Arthur concluded that due to the presence of a mental illness the accused “was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act” and supported a defence of unsoundness of mind in relation to the Queensland offences (Arthur report p. 18). He also found that the accused “fulfilled the essence of the Presser criteria” and as such was fit to enter a plea and to stand trial in that matter.
Evidence of clinicians from Canberra Hospital
In evidence are three documents which relate to the ongoing treatment of the accused. There are two Patient Progress Reports dated 2 July to 12 July 2019 and 17 December 2019 to 22 January 2020 respectively. There is also a letter written by Naomi Campbell, the accused’s clinical manager with Forensic Mental Health Services at the Alexander Maconochie Centre.
The accused is accessing the forensic mental health service on a voluntary basis and is being prescribed medications for his condition. He has been compliant with recommended medication and consistently engaged with the service during his time in custody. He has agreed to be referred to the Detention Exit Community Outreach program to support his transition into the community. He will be referred for ongoing psychiatric care should he be released into the community.
The most recent Patient Progress report notes that he “displays ongoing elements of grandiosity and some ongoing religious fixation, but to a far lesser extent than when initially inducted and this does not appear to be impacting on his functioning or his activities of daily living.”
Submissions
Counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of Dr Furst would be enough, on the balance of probabilities, to satisfy the Court of the existence of a mental impairment, being bipolar effective disorder, and that the limbs relied upon by the accused under s 28 of the Criminal Code are satisfied (T 9.10-20).
Consideration
On the balance of probabilities, I accept that in the period leading up to and at the time of the offences the accused was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that he did not know that his conduct was wrong, in that he was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct as seen by a reasonable person was wrong.
Consequently, in relation to each charge, I consider that a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment is appropriate and, in each case, the special verdict will be entered.
Orders
In relation to each offence, I enter a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.
| I certify that the preceding seventy [70] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Justice Loukas-Karlsson. Associate: Date: |
4
9
4