R v Maddeford No. Sccrm-00-226

R v MADDEFORD
[2000] SASC 411

Trial by Judge Alone
Nyland J

The accused is charged with the offence of false imprisonment. The particulars of the offence allege that on 9 September 1999 at Adelaide, the accused unlawfully imprisoned Jacintya Gaye Gillespie and detained her for about two and a half hours against her will. The accused is further charged with the offence of threatening life, namely, that on 9 September 1999 at Adelaide without lawful excuse he threatened to kill Jacintya Gaye Gillespie, intending to arouse a fear that the threat was likely to be carried out or being recklessly indifferent as to whether such a fear was aroused.
The accused elected to be tried by a judge without a jury and the trial proceeded before me accordingly. Ms Kelly appeared as counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions and Ms Powell QC appeared for the accused. At the commencement of the trial the accused raised a defence of mental incompetence to commit the crimes charged.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 269E(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, (the Act) I exercised my discretion first to proceed with the trial of the objective elements of the offence. By consent, the Crown sought to establish the objective elements by tendering the declarations of the following:

·...... Michael David, District Court Judge, dated 13 October 1999.

Adrian Lachlan Koschade, Judge’s Associate, dated 15 October 1999.
Dean Andrew Faulkner, camera operator editor employed by Network Ten, dated 20 September 1999.
Fiona Taylor Clark, court reporter employed by Channel 10, dated 27 September 1999.
Ron Quigley, Sheriff’s officer, dated 13 October 1999.
Arthur Chadwick, Sheriff’s officer, dated 18 October 1999.
Peter John McIntyre, Senior Constable of police, dated 9 September 1999.
Martin Bazely, Sheriff’s officer, dated 14 September 1999.
Steven Strickland, Sheriff’s officer, dated 14 October 1999.
Steve Prisco, Sheriff’s officer, dated 13 October 1999.
Grant James, Sheriff’s officer, dated 13 October 1999.
Garry Trengove, Sheriff’s officer, dated 14 October 1999.
Rick Flett, Sheriff’s officer, dated 14 October 1999.
Lyndon Parker, Sheriff’s officer, dated 18 October 1999.
Michael Josef Polacek, Detective Senior Constable, dated 9 September 1999.
Sharynne Lee Grant, victim contact officer, dated 14 September 1999.
Gregory Metzger, Senior Constable of police, dated 13 September 1999.
Paul Kolesnikowicz, police officer, dated 16 September 1999.
Peter Anthony Rowe, police Senior Constable, dated 18 September 1999.
Keith Steenwyk, Sheriff’s officer, dated 14 October 1999.
Cathy Stauner, Sheriff’s officer, dated 13 October 1999.
David John Sheridan, Detective Senior Constable, dated 26 September 1999.
David Murray Coultate, Detective Senior Constable, dated 18 October 1999.
Andrew Edward Bolingbroke, Detective Senior Constable, dated 8 October 1999.
Stephen John Taylor, Detective Senior Constable, dated 17 October 1999.
Caroline Ann Baker, Senior Constable, dated 11 September 1999.
John Fry, police officer, dated 18 October, 1999.
Paul Thomas Hart, manager Sheriff’s officer regional, dated 21 October 1999.
Jacintya Gaye Gillespie, court reporter, dated 25 October 1999.
Tim Beck, Sheriff’s officer, dated 22 October 1999.
Kerrie Lee, police officer, dated 22 October 1999,
Christine Lilian Lawrance, Senior Sergeant of police and qualified negotiator, dated 13 September 2000.
Annemieke Lyndy Baker, police negotiator, dated 25 October 1999.
Colin Barber, Sheriff’s officer, dated 29 October 1999.
Robert Neil Beattie, Senior Constable of police, dated 28 October 1999.
Steven Millsteed, Crown counsel for Director of Public Prosecutions, dated 9 November 1999.
Karen Frances Hall, Judge’s secretary, dated 29 October 1999.
Rosemary Jane Fox, Channel 9 court reporter, dated 9 November 1999.
Mike D’Ambrosio, Sheriff’s officer, dated 10 November 1999.

Ms Powell indicated that she did not wish to cross-examine any of the deponents as to their declarations, nor did she wish to call any evidence on behalf of the accused as to this aspect of the trial. Ms Kelly submitted that the content of the declarations was capable of satisfying me beyond reasonable doubt as to the objective elements of each of the crimes charged. Ms Powell did not make any submissions with respect thereto. I thereafter ruled that the objective facts of each of the crimes charged had been established beyond reasonable doubt. I then embarked on the second part of the trial and pursuant to the provisions of s 269GB(1) of the Act, heard evidence and representations on the issue of mental competence.
Section 269C of the Act defines mental incompetence as follows:
“A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offence if, at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, the person is suffering from mental impairment and, in consequence of mental impairment -
(a)     does not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b)    does not know that the conduct is wrong; or
(c)     is unable to control the conduct.”
It is also relevant to note that s 269A of the Act defines “mental impairment” as including a mental illness, an intellectual disability, or a disability or impairment of the mind resulting from senility. Mental illness is further defined as a pathological infirmity of the mind (including a temporary one of short duration). The footnote states “A condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli is not a mental illness, although such a condition may be evidence of mental illness if it involves some abnormality and is prone to recur (see R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30)”.
In the course of submissions Ms Powell referred to the comments of Dixon J (as he then was) when charging the jury in R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182 as to the issue of temporary insanity arising out of an indictment for murder. Although preceding the current legislative scheme, Porter is nevertheless a useful guide as to matters relevant to issues of mental impairment arising under the Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 269GB of the Act, the onus is upon the accused to satisfy me as to his mental incompetence on the balance of probabilities. Ms Powell was therefore dux litus with respect to this stage of the trial.
Ms Powell, by consent, tendered pp 173 to 206 and pp 209 to 211 of the transcript of the trial of the accused on a charge of armed robbery. That trial had proceeded before Judge Burnett of the District Court in September 1998. The portion of the transcript tendered by Ms Powell consists of evidence given by the accused in those proceedings as to his personal history and the development of his mental disorder.
Ms Powell also, by consent, tendered the report of Professor Alexander McFarlane, a psychiatrist, dated 1 May 2000. Professor McFarlane had examined the accused at Yatala Labour Prison on 27 March 2000.
The accused then gave evidence and was cross-examined by Ms Kelly. The only evidence called by the prosecution on the issue of mental competence was that contained in the report of Professor Robert Goldney, a psychiatrist, dated 29 June 2000. That report was also admitted by consent. Professor Goldney had examined the accused at Yatala Labour Prison on 26 June 2000.
The events leading up to the commission of these offences are not in dispute. Nevertheless, in considering the issue of mental competence it is necessary to consider the evidence as to the accused’s background which includes the development of an undisputed mental disorder. The accused was born on 29 July 1967. He was educated at Enfield High School to Year 11 and then transferred to Adelaide TAFE to complete Year 12. While studying for his matriculation at Adelaide TAFE he undertook a part-time job at Woolworths where he eventually became a permanent part-time employee. He subsequently obtained a full-time position at BiLo as a trainee manager where he worked for about 12 months. He then was employed by Arrow Supermarkets for a period of about 12 months. Thereafter he went to Venture stores where he was employed as a manager for a period of about one year. In 1990 he was accepted into the police force. He spent approximately one year at Fort Largs being trained as a police officer. He graduated in May 1991 and thereafter went to Holden Hill to work as a probationary constable. He remained at Holden Hill for a period of about three and a half years, initially working in the cells but later in various other sections. In 1994 he was transferred to patrols. He was subsequently transferred to the communications area in Adelaide for about one year and then went to the Tea Tree Gully police station for about two years. He appears to have been working at Tea Tree Gully at about the time that he was charged with the offence of armed robbery.
During the period that the accused was working at Woolworths and studying for matriculation he had a failed relationship. It was at about this time he developed an anxiety about locking doors. His repetitive conduct with respect to locking doors, in time, escalated to include rituals as to turning light switches on and off, looking for keys, turning off taps and washing hands. At about the age of 18, the accused contemplated suicide and was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the Royal Adelaide Hospital for a period of two weeks. He then had psychiatric treatment for about two years. In 1987 he consulted Dr Barrow, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed an obsessive compulsive disorder. Dr Barrow prescribed a drug called Anafranil. The accused took the drug for about six months but then stopped on account of unpleasant side effects, although he still saw Dr Barrow from time to time. The accused said that his obsessive behaviour created problems with him coping with employment. In addition he had difficulty in maintaining any personal relationship for more than six months. In 1992, however, he met his wife whom he married in 1994.
The accused’s obsession with respect to locking doors, turning off light switches, taps and the like continued unabated. The period in which he was working in the cells at Holden Hill was particularly difficult as his duties included attending to prisoners and cleaning cells which on occasion were soiled with faeces and urine. The accused said he used to feel violently ill and sick from that environment and it appears that at about this time that he became particularly obsessive about germs. Later when working on patrols he was involved in an incident with an offender who tried to escape. The accused received cuts and grazes on his hands. He was subsequently told that the offender was an IV drug user suffering from Hepatitis C and possible AIDS. The accused was then obliged to have 12 months of blood testing to ensure that he did not seroconvert. The accused said he still worries about the thought of having blood on his hands and imagines germs. He said he had stopped seeing Dr Barrow when he went to work in the police force but following his arrest on the charge of armed robbery he resumed seeing him and was treated with anti-depressants.
The accused’s trial for armed robbery took place in the District Court in September 1998. The jury was unable to reach a verdict. The accused was then remanded on bail to await a new trial. He remained on bail from September 1998 until September 1999 when the second trial commenced. In that period the accused was in continuous employment although he had a number of different jobs. The accused said that the matters relating to his obsessive compulsive disorder continued throughout this period. The most serious problem related to his obsession with germs and the need to wash his hands, which he did about 50 times a day. When asked about the sort of things he was thinking about leading up to his second trial he said (Tr 15):
“The major fear was if I go to gaol the germs are going to get inside my body through either the food or the dirt in the walls or even in the air, and once I knew that I got those germs into my body, there was no way I could get them out. It wasn’t like I could wash my hands and get rid of them. If they’re inside my body, I knew that I’d die from them.”
The second trial took place in the District Court in September 1999 before Judge David and a jury. The only issue was the mental competence of the accused. In due course the jury determined that the accused was mentally competent to commit the armed robbery offence. Upon the jury returning that verdict, the accused pleaded guilty. The plea appears to have been entered on Monday 6 September 1999.
The accused remained on bail. The following day he had an appointment with Ms Vanstone QC, the counsel who had represented him at the trial and he then spent the rest of the day with his wife. The accused said that he had been hearing voices for about the last five years and that he had always thought that it was the devil talking to him. He said (Tr 16):
“[I]t’s only from that Monday that he was telling me that if I go to gaol the germs are going to kill me and that kept repeating through my mind.”
He said he continued to hear the voices but was hoping that he would not be going to gaol. As a result he was constantly asking his wife “Are the germs going to kill me”. He said that on the Wednesday morning he returned to court at which time submissions were made on his behalf. He was again remanded on bail to appear in court the following morning for sentence. He said he went out to dinner that evening but had to leave the restaurant as he felt sick. He continued to ask his wife whether the germs would kill him if he went to gaol. His wife kept trying to reassure him but he was convinced that she was lying to him. He said (Tr 20):
“[D]uring the night the devil told me to take a knife and kill myself, because there was no way I was going to allow myself to be eaten by those germs in gaol.”
He said that on Thursday morning he deliberately did not get dressed in his suit because he wanted to be buried in it. He went to the kitchen where he taped a knife to his left arm. He also took a canister of pepper spray from a kitchen drawer. He said that he had decided to kill himself if he were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His wife drove him to court. He was called into the dock and said he was standing when the judge entered the courtroom. The judge then read his sentencing remarks. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for six years with a two and a half year non-parole period. The accused said that during the period that the judge was sentencing him (Tr 22):
“I couldn’t get any rational thought, I was plagued with the devil telling me that if I go to gaol the devil is going to kill me and I kept having flashes, seeing myself with my stomach being ripped open and decaying from these germs.”
He said that at the end of the sentence he heard the judge say “two and a half years”. As the judge was about to leave he jumped out of the dock. The accused said that he jumped out of the dock to get away from the court sheriff and was going to stab himself. When he got to the other side of the dock he pulled the knife out from underneath his left sleeve. He said he remembered grabbing the knife but as he got it he was confronted by about four or five court sheriffs. He backed away from them to stop them taking the knife away. He did not have time to stab himself. He said he then came in contact with the court reporter, Jacintya Gillespie. The accused said that as he was backing away he backed into the side of the court reporter. He did not know why but he grabbed her around the throat with his left arm. He agreed that he kept his arm around her throat and said “Stay away or I’ll kill her” because he did not want anyone to take the knife away. He said that during this period he did not even know how he came to grab Ms Gillespie. He did not know why he had taken her hostage. He said (Tr 24):
“The devil kept telling me I’ve got to stab myself in my heart. I still don’t know to this day why I grabbed Jacintya and I feel overwhelmingly sick that I did.”
He agreed that eventually the courtroom was cleared of a lot of people and there was somebody negotiating with him. He agreed that he held Ms Gillespie for a period of over two hours, during which time people were talking to him, trying to persuade him to let Ms Gillespie go, and trying to persuade him to put the knife down. His family was brought into the courtroom and he talked to his wife and his sister and his father. He said that he still heard the devil telling him to kill himself and he found it really hard to concentrate on what his family was saying. He did not know how he held Ms Gillespie hostage or why he did it but knew he still kept her there.
Ms Powell said (Tr 26):
“Did you know it was wrong to keep her there like that?”

And he said

“I felt sick about - I didn’t understand why I have got her there. I couldn’t concentrate on trying to understand why.”

He agreed he did not let her go and said “If I let her go, I thought they would take my knife away and I would go to gaol and the germs would kill me”. He agreed that during the period that he held Ms Gillespie hostage he was saying angry things about the prosecutor and his counsel which he described as his paranoia. He agreed that eventually he put the knife down at the request of the negotiator and he finally let Ms Gillespie leave. He said that at the time he let her walk away he felt like apologising to her.
Ms Powell asked:
“At that stage, when you let her walk away, did you realise what you were doing was wrong?”

And he said:

“Yes, because the whole incident only occurred because I took a knife in to kill myself. I feel dreadfully ashamed that I have affected her life the way I have, and she should never have been involved. If this is my only opportunity, I would like to publicly apologise to her.”

He said, however, that he was still not thinking rationally. He surrendered eventually because his mother said that she needed him.
The accused was closely cross-examined by Ms Kelly about his intention and mental state. He agreed that he knew of the police negotiator Christine Lawrance. He knew what she was there for and what she was doing. He agreed that he was the one to ask to see his family. He agreed to Ms Lawrance’s request to put the knife down because he was not going to harm anybody. He said that occurred at a time when Ms Gillespie was sitting next to him. He said he had no intention of hurting anyone. He denied that all his actions, including concealing the knife in his sleeve and the pepper spray in his pocket were to ensure that he could get out of the court if the judge said he had to go to gaol. He denied that when he leapt over the dock he had grabbed the nearest available person as a hostage to try to negotiate his way out of the courtroom.
There is no dispute that the accused suffers from an obsessive compulsive disorder which Professor Goldney described as “severe”. Professor McFarlane described the nature of such a disorder as follows:
“One of the interesting dilemmas in understanding obsessive compulsive disorder is gaining a sense of the irrationality of the individual’s anxieties. In contrast to a psychotic disorder, the typical patient will carry out seemingly irrational behaviour, although he will recognise that there is no reason to do it. For example, some patients out of fear of causing a disaster, will check and re-check that a stove is turned off. Others become intensely preoccupied about the possibility of a diaster happening to their children and will carry out activities to the extremes of scrubbing the paths of the garden with a toothbrush and Dettol to prevent infection to their children.
At one level these individuals understand the irrationality of their behaviour, but they are unable to stop it because of the extreme anxiety they feel if prevented in carrying out these rituals. These are people who feel extremely threatened by the possibility of something going wrong. One of their particular fears is about contamination with germs.”

Professor McFarlane said:
“Maddeford’s presentation was consistent with a diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder. He had a range of obsessional ruminations, focusing on contamination, the possibility of disasters and the fear of committing violent acts against people. These thoughts are associated with significant distress and are highly intrusive. They appear to drive his associated compulsions of hand washing, and checking. These symptoms have been the source of significant disability and handicap, both in his working life and his interpersonal relationships.”
In his report Professor McFarlane discussed whether the accused appreciated the wrongfulness of the act in which he was involved. He considered whether the accused’s initial behaviour could be interpreted as intending to attack either the Judge or an official of the court, as opposed to an attempt to commit suicide. Professor McFarlane discussed the question of why the accused had taken a hostage if suicide was his intention. Professor McFarlane said that it was consistent with the accused’s illness that he would have been in “a state of considerable distress and abnormal agitation at the time of being sentenced”. He concluded by saying:
“Hence, if one accepts that Mr Maddeford has an obsessive compulsive disorder, and that his intention on the day of the 9th September, 1999, was to attempt suicide in the court room it is my view that Mr Maddeford was mentally incompetent at that moment, according to the criteria ...” (emphasis added)
Professor Goldney, however, expressed a different view. He said:
“[T]here is no doubt about Mr Maddeford’s mental competence in terms of the first two criteria, that is, that he knew the nature and quality of his conduct and that he knew that the conduct was wrong. Even if one were to allow that there had been a transient loss of mental competence, then one would have anticipated that the ‘stand-off’ with Court officials would not have extended for as long as did occur.
The issue of whether or not Mr Maddeford was ‘unable to control the conduct’ at the initiation of the incident needs to be considered in the context of the prior planning and his subsequent actions during the ‘stand-off’. The secreting of a knife and the spray is a clear indication of planning, and his refusal to be searched is a further indication of that planning and intent. With regard to Mr Maddeford’s intent, I certainly accept that there was some degree of intent to attempt suicide, and Professor McFarlane has put forward an hypothesis in that regard. Professor McFarlane has indicated that when persons contemplate suicide they are ‘in a state of extreme psychological anxiety’. However, that is not always the case. Furthermore, sometimes when persons have made a decision to suicide, they are observed to be relatively serene. Indeed, they may simply go ahead and kill themselves in what seems to be a cold blooded fashion.” (emphasis added)
Professor Goldney discussed whether Mr Maddeford had been acting under delusional influence and said:
“Indeed, according to Mr Maddeford, the commands of the devil were to harm himself, but he did not go through with that. That in itself indicates that, at the very least in regard to resisting that, he was able to control his conduct. In fact he was able to resist harming himself directly, given the content of his thinking, then it is difficult to accept that he would be unable to control himself in regard to harming others.”
He also said:
“It is also pertinent that Mr Maddeford, to his credit, was able to control his conduct, within limits, over the few hours that this incident occurred. This does not negate the possibility that there may have been an initial transient loss of control, but it does make it less likely. At the very least, one could not invoke a prolonged period of mental incompetence, even if one were to accept the possibility that there may have been an initial transient loss of control.” (emphasis added)
He concluded that:
“[A]lthough there is some doubt about Mr Maddeford’s mental competence during the initial moments of the incidents of the 9th of September 1999, on the balance of probability he would have had mental competence at that time. I have no such doubts about his mental competence in regard to the continuation of the incidents following the initial moments.” (emphasis added)
In reaching his final conclusion, Professor Goldney clearly placed great weight on the factual history of the matter as set out in the various declarations filed in these proceedings. I do not propose to canvass the details of each of those declarations but I think it is useful to refer to the declaration of Ms Gillespie, the reporter who was held hostage and that of Ms Lawrance, the police negotiator.
Ms Gillespie described the events occurring in the following way:
“When the proceedings had ended, MADDEFORD leaped over the dock, grabbed me in headlock and wrestled me to the ground. He produced a knife and threatened to kill me. He said words to the effect ‘Stand back or I’ll kill her’. He yelled this out to the other members of the Security staff who were in the courtroom.
Whilst on the floor of the courtroom, I was trying to break free from his grip but I was prevented from breaking free due to his restraining me. After a short time, he then pulled me up from the floor and dragged me over to the Judge’s bench. He still had a hold of me around the neck with his left arm and he had his left foot positioned on top of my right foot.
He held the knife in his right hand and positioned it in front of my face. He held the knife tightly, having it pointing upwards and menacing those persons, in the courtroom. He kept saying the words ‘I’m not going to gaol’. He repeated those words many times. He then told the Police negotiator that he wanted to see his wife and the other members of his family in the court. By this time the other people in the courtroom had left and only the Police negotiator was in the courtroom. Eventually his wife, father, mother and sister were allowed into the courtroom.
One of the conditions, before members of his family were allowed in the courtroom was that the knife he was holding was to be placed by his side. He complied with the condition and placed the knife alongside himself. I was kept alongside of him as the Police Negotiators talked to him. The conversations that we were having were about his family and the situation that he had placed himself into.
After about the initial 20 minutes, everything started to settle down and I began to talk to him. He was angry at the Police, in particular Mr POLACEK and directed his verbal attacks towards him. He also expressed anger towards the barristers involved, the judge and the jury. I started talking to him about his family, the situation that he was in, sympathising with him and generally attempting to gain his confidence.
During our conversations in the presence of the Police negotiator, MADDEFORD was told, that I needed to go to the toilet. At first he wouldn’t allow this to happen. I believe he knew that if he let me go he would lose his hostage, and that’s what I was to him at that time. Eventually during the conversation, one of the negotiators signalled me to leave his side. I walked away freely from his side and out of the courtroom. I believe that the time that I was released was about 12.30 pm on the same day.
I felt relieved that I had been released. I received some minor physial injuries to the back and front of my neck, shoulders and bruising on my upper arms. When MADDEFORD made the undertaking during the Police negotiations that he wouldn’t hurt me, I felt confident that he wouldn’t hurt me. Initially he threatened other person in the courtroom that he would do things to me. I feel what he meant by that was that if anyone tried something he would harm me in some way.”
Christine Lawrance, the police negotiator entered the courtroom just after 10 am. She said that she observed the accused “holding a knife in his right hand holding a female person I now know as Juanita (sic) Gillespie with his left hand and pointing the knife at her face.” She said:
“I introduced myself and Wayne’s opening statement was ‘don’t give me any of that Negotiator shit Chris’. Wayne was very emotional, upset and appeared agitated. Both Wayne and Juanita were standing up and I suggested they sit down, which they did on the step to the left of the judge’s bench and Juanita sat down with him. He continued to hold the knife whilst I spoke with him. Wayne continually raised his voice during our conversation, but spoke clearly although upset and emotional. I had not (sic) difficulty in understanding what he said and he appeared not to have any difficulty in understanding what I was saying. I can not recall all the conversation, but to the best of my memory I can say we had a lengthy conversation about him putting the knife down and not harming Juanita.”
She said the conversation continued about the court proceedings and accusations were made that various people were in league with each other. The accused told Ms Lawrance about his fear of going to prison. He described himself as an obsessive compulsive depressant. Ms Lawrance said they had lengthy conversations about the media and the publicity to which the accused had been subjected. She said that it was about a half an hour into the conversation that the accused demanded that his parents be present. She said:
“I had a lengthy discussion with Wayne in relation to why he would like his parents inside the court room and for him to consider how they may feel about coming into the court room, in particular I placed emphasis on him holding Juanita with a knife. Wayne said ‘I want to apologise to my family for what I have done’. I said, ‘You are not going to do anything silly if I allow them to come into the court room’. Our conversation continued and I informed him that allowing his parents into the court room would not be considered until he put the knife down. I went on to explain the safety issues involved in allowing other persons into the court room and that I needed to be satisfied that he would not harm anyone or harm himself in the presence of his parents. Wayne eventually agreed to put the knife down, and he did so by placing the knife to the right of him on the step below where he was sitting. Juanita was still sitting on his left hand side.”
After the accused’s parents entered the courtroom Ms Lawrance said that his demeanour changed and he became more relaxed, although still upset and emotional. She said:
“Wayne even commenced conversations with Juanita - he listened to her advice that she gave on occasions when he addressed her. Wayne and Juanita continued to sit on the step together, the knife to the right of Wayne and they both folded their arms, tucked their legs under themselves, occasionally putting their head in their hands and leaning back, Wayne lent forward most of the time though. Juanita’s demeanour appeared to make Wayne more relaxed.
As a result of Wayne’s father having difficulty in hearing, he was permitted to enter the jurors area and sat in the front row, in permitting this Wayne was required to give assurance that he would not touch the knife or make any threats that would cause concern to anyone.
During Wayne’s conversation with his father he was supplied a glass of water which he had requested, I poured the glass of water from a jug within the court and placed on the court reporters desk. Juanita in fact leant over and handed this glass of water to Wayne, he placed the glass of water between his legs on the step.
Waye was permitted to speak with his family members. I recall Wayne saying ‘I am sorry for what I have done to you all’, ‘I am sorry about the money this has all cost’, ‘Tell Chris about my fears Dad’. Mr Maddeford (Wayne’s father) then explained Wayne’s condition in relation to his obsession with cleanliness. Wayne continued to converse with his wife, they questioned him about why he had done what he did this morning and he just kept saying ‘I am not going to gaol’. He further said ‘I will kill myself before I go to gaol’. His father became quite emotional about this statement and made some comment about their age difference and that he would like to think that his children would outlive him. All of Wayne’s family were emotionally upset, but they kept reassuring him that they would stand by him and support him, even visiting hours were discussed and further discussion were had in relation to his placement in a country gaol instead of Yatala.”
Ms Lawrance said that it became obvious to her that Ms Gillespie was uncomfortable with her continual changing of positions and it was suggested to the accused that she might need to go to the toilet. Ms Lawrance said there was a conversation for several minutes. While talking to the accused about Ms Gillespie’s needs she signalled her to get up and walk towards her, which she did and Ms Gillespie then left the courtroom. This was about two to two and a half hours after the incident had commenced. The accused surrendered at about 1.50 pm.
In view of the accused’s longstanding problems arising out of his obsessive compulsive disorder it is understandable that following his conviction with respect to the armed robbery offence, he was in a state of extreme anxiety which may have caused him to contemplate suicide if he were to be sent to gaol. That may explain why he took the knife and the pepper spray with him to court and allows for the possibility that when he leapt from the dock he did so with the intention of taking his own life.
Although some of the declarations filed in these proceedings suggest a different intent directed towards the judge and/or the reporter, I believe it is necessary to approach the witness statements with some degree of caution. These events unfolded with great rapidity and I must allow for the possibility of some degree of ex post facto reconstruction of what in fact occurred and regrettably the security camera did not record the commencement of the incident.
Professor McFarlane appears to accept that the accused had an intention to commit suicide and expressed the view that the accused was mentally incompetent “at that moment”. I take this to mean as the incident commenced. Although Professor Goldney expressed a different opinion, he nevertheless accepted that there was “some degree of intent to attempt suicide” and he allowed for the possibility of an initial transient loss of control. Professor Goldney went on to say that there was some doubt about the mental competence of the accused during the initial moments of the incident although on the balance of probability he thought that the accused was mentally competent. He said, however, that he had no such doubts about the accused’s mental competence late into the continuation of the incident following the initial moment. Unfortunately, Professor McFarlane did not appear to address the later period. Ms Powell urged me, however, to accept the evidence of the accused that his suicidal intention continued throughout the incident and submitted that that evidence, combined with the opinion expressed by Professor McFarlane would lead to a conclusion that the accused was mentally incompetent, not only when he leapt from the dock but, at all times thereafter until he was taken into custody.
I am satisfied that the accused was in a state of extreme psychological anxiety following the entry of his plea of guilty up until the time that he was sentenced. Having considered all of the evidence, however, I am unable to reach any firm conclusion as to the original motive of the accused in concealing the knife and the pepper spray upon his person. Nor can I resolve the intention of the accused at the point at which he leapt from the dock. On the evidence there is at least a possibility that at that time his intention was to commit suicide. My inability to resolve those matters does not, however, affect my ultimate conclusion as to mental competence as, in my view, the relevant time for assessment of that issue is the point at which the accused took Ms Gillespie hostage and uttered the threats against her life.
There is ample evidence to support a finding that at the time the accused took Ms Gillespie hostage the accused was conscious of what he was doing and that he knew that it was wrong. That was the opinion of Professor Goldney but, in any event, the accused, by his own evidence, admitted as much. Although the accused may not have been thinking rationally and may have continued to be plagued by thoughts of suicide, he nevertheless demonstrated an ability to control his conduct at the relevant time. For example, he agreed that he kept his arm around Ms Gillespie’s throat and made the threats to kill her because he did not want anyone to take the knife away. He was aware of the identity of the police negotiator. He spoke clearly to Ms Lawrance on a number of topics. Ms Lawrance did not have any difficulty in understanding what he said. He agreed to the request to put the knife down. He complied with a request not to touch the knife nor make any further threats if his father was permitted to sit in the jury box. He did not obstruct Ms Gillespie from finally leaving the courtroom. Perhaps the matter which is of greatest significance, however, is the fact that the accused maintained that throughout the whole of this incident he was beset by the devil pressuring him to take his own life, yet he was clearly able to resist those suggestions as he did not at any time appear to make any attempt to commit suicide. The accused has, therefore, failed to discharge the onus placed upon him. I find that the accused was mentally competent to commit the crimes charged. I am also satisfied that the subjective elements of the offence have been established beyond reasonable doubt. I find the accused guilty of the offences charged.

[2000] SASC 411

24 November 2000