R v McCubbray Summary

[2000] QCA 236

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
WHITE J
DUTNEY J

CA No 56 of 2000

THE QUEEN

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.

-----

The case of R v McCubbray involved an appeal against a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal, which found that the appellant, William James McCubbray, was suffering from unsoundness of mind and should be detained as a restricted patient under the Mental Health Act. The appeal was heard by Pincus JA, White J, and Dutney J in the Court of Appeal. The appellant, represented by Mr Chowdhury, contended that he had been wrongly detained as the charges against him were not being pursued. The key issue for the court was whether the Tribunal's decision to detain the appellant was justified based on the evidence presented.

The court reviewed the reports of psychiatrists Dr Fama and Dr Reddan, who both diagnosed the appellant with delusions and a belief that he was the victim of a conspiracy involving German monarchists. The appellant's delusions included the belief that he should have been heir to a large sum of gold and references to Queen Elizabeth II. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence and that there was no evidence to contradict the psychiatrists' reports. The court held that the appeal was not legally sound as the fact that the charges were not being proceeded with did not affect the Tribunal's authority to detain the appellant if he was found to be of unsound mind.

All three judges agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and the order of the Tribunal upheld. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was inevitable given the evidence and that no additional evidence had been presented to contradict the findings. The appeal was dismissed, and the order for the appellant's detention as a restricted patient was confirmed.

R v McCubbray

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established