R v McCubbray

[2000] QCA 236

[2000] QCA 236

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
WHITE J
DUTNEY J

CA No 56 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

WILLIAM JAMES McCUBBRAY  Appellant

BRISBANE

DATE 15/06/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA:  This is an appeal from the Mental Health Tribunal which had to determine the mental state of the appellant, Mr W J McCubbray.  The decision, which is at page 2 of the record, mentioned that the appellant had been charged with various offences, including an attempt unlawfully to kill a person in October last year. 

Mr Chowdhury, who has appeared for Mr McCubbray today, has informed us that the appellant is of the view that he has been wrongly charged with these offences and that they were committed by another person.  The Tribunal came to the conclusion that at relevant times the patient was suffering from unsoundness of mind within the meaning of section 33 of the Mental Health Act and that he is therefore liable to be detained as a restricted patient under part 4 of the Act.  Chesterman J ordered that the appellant be detained in the John Oxley Memorial Hospital.

The argument which has been advanced on his behalf by Mr Chowdhury is to the effect that he is not only not guilty of the offences with which he was charged, but that he has been wrongly detained because the charges are not being proceeded with.  That submission, as I think is conceded by Mr Chowdhury, is not legally sound.

The material upon which the order of the Tribunal was made is before us.  It appears to me unnecessary to set out the details of it but some mention should be made of the general character of the reports.  In a report from Dr Fama, which is at page 16 of the record, Dr Fama mentions (this is at page 17) that the appellant accepts that he has been charged with the offences and that he regards them as unlawful arrest.  The doctor goes on to say, "Essentially he believes that evil forces, especially the German monarchists, have conspired to disinherit him.  He should have been heir to '2,000 tons of gold'." and there is reference made to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

Similar remarks appear at page 26 in the report of Dr J G Reddan.  Each of these psychiatrists was of such an opinion as to justify amply the orders which were made in the Tribunal.  It has also been drawn to our attention and appears to be the fact that there was no evidence contrary to the reports which I have mentioned.

It therefore appears to me that the proper order for this Court to make is simply that the appeal be dismissed and I would so order.

WHITE J:  I agree.

DUTNEY J:  I also agree.  The finding of the Mental Health Tribunal was, in my view, inevitable, having regard to the evidence led before it.  No additional evidence has been adduced before us and it seems to me that the order should stand.

PINCUS JA:  The order is the appeal is dismissed.

-----