R v Pedley
[2011] VSC 609
•25 November 2011
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 0056 of 2011
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| TRAVIS PEDLEY |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 12 July 2011 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 25 November 2011 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Pedley | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VSC 609 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Attempted Murder – Plea of not guilty by reason of Mental Impairment – Consent Hearing - s 21 Crimes (Mental Impairment & Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Circumstances of offending – Diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia - Report furnished pursuant to s 41 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act – Supervision Order imposed - 25 year nominal term.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms A. Forrester | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr I. Alger | Victoria Legal Aid |
Travis Pedley, on 12 July 2011 you pleaded not guilty before me to the attempted murder of Ian Coe at Venus Bay on 8 October 2010. The matter proceeded as a hearing pursuant to s 21(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (“the Act”). That provision allows me to determine whether a person charged on an indictable offence was suffering from mental impairment at the time the conduct constituting the offence occurred.
The perquisite to hearing such a case without the jury is the agreement of the prosecution and defence that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment.
“Mental impairment” is defined in s 20(1) of the Act in these terms:
“20. Defence of mental impairment
(1) The defence of mental impairment is established for a person charged with an offence if, at the time of engaging in conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that-
(a) he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is, he or she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).
(2) If the defence of mental impairment is established, the person must be found not guilty because of mental impairment.”
The defence of mental impairment is to be established on the balance of probabilities.
Section 21(4) of the Act provides:
“(4) If a person is charged with an indictable offence and, before the empanelment of a jury, the prosecution and the defence agree that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, the trial judge may hear the evidence and-
(a) if the trial judge is satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, may direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded; or
(b) if the trial judge is not so satisfied, must direct that the person be tried by a jury.”
In your case, Mr Pedley, the prosecution and defence have agreed that I should hear the case, and I regarded it as appropriate to do so in the circumstances.
The facts of the case were opened in detail by the prosecutor, Ms Amanda Forrester, and the written opening became Exhibit 1. On Friday 8 October 2010, Mr Ian Coe, the entirely innocent victim of your behaviour, was working with his son Glenn in the Coe’s lawn mowing business called Coe’s Mowing. At about 9.10 am on that morning, Mr Coe was on his ride-on mower in Canterbury Road, Venus Bay. Mr Coe saw you driving your car towards him. He was unable to get out of the way and your car hit his mower and knocked him off it. You then turned round and drove at and hit Mr Coe. You were driving it between 30 and 40 kilometres an hour when you did that. By that time, Glenn Coe was attempting to come to the aid of his father. You turned around again and accelerated your car towards Mr Coe. You ran over his legs and stomach and Mr Coe’s son had to jump away to avoid being hit.
Glenn Coe attempted to shield his father by using his car, but you manoeuvred your car around it and again drove over Mr Coe’s legs. You yelled out, “I’m going to kill the cunt. Let him know that this is a warning. This will teach him not to stalk me and come near my house”.
Your registration number had been noted and you were eventually arrested by police. You claimed to be a Federal Police officer working for ASIO but your supervisor, you said, could not be contacted as she was out in the field. You said you had run over a man who had been stalking you and you referred to Mr Coe as “Coey”. You were found not fit to be interviewed.
Mr Coe was hospitalised and found to be suffering from the following extremely severe injuries:
(a)an unstable pelvis fracture;
(b)a fractured left scapula;
(c)a collapsed lung;
(d)a fracture of part of the hip;
(e)a large number of fractured ribs;
(f)a torn urethra;
(g)a fractured thoracic vertebrae;
(h)intervertebral body inlaid fracture;
(i)genital injuries;
(j)torn back ligaments
(k)perinephric and retroperitoneal haematomas;
(l)a fractured tibia;
(m)pulmonary contusions;
(n)an extensive sacral fracture with iliac wing fracture;
(o)lacerated kidney; and
(p)fractured fibula.
He has undergone extensive treatment, including surgery. He remained in intensive care for 11 days. He was hospitalised for more than a month and requires almost full time care for his ongoing disabilities as a result of these matters.
Mr Coe was 56 years of age at the time of these matters. The effects of a number of the injuries that I have described are permanent and he will need ongoing support which is being provided to him by his partner, Ms Janet Smith. I received reports pursuant to s 42 of the Act from both Mr Coe and Ms Smith.
The material is set out in a concise and factual way. The position is that their lives have been altered dramatically and for the worse. Their enjoyment of life is significantly diminished and that is simply the permanent state of affairs.
I received on the hearing a report from Dr Alan Jager, psychiatrist, who had examined you, and his report became Exhibit 2 on the plea. I heard from Dr Ann Brennan from Forensicare who is presently responsible for your care and I received a report from her which became Exhibit 3.
I should say first of all that although you entertained a number of ideas about being stalked by Mr Coe, I have no doubt that your belief in relation to those matters was delusional.
Doctor Jager reported, under the heading “Opinion and recommendation”, in describing you:
“(1) He has treatment resistant chronic paranoid schizophrenia which has been likely present for at least six years - probably longer.
(2) It is characterised by fixed false persecutory beliefs, bizarre beliefs and abnormal sensory perceptions.
(3) He requires treatment with support of counselling, psycho-education and psychotic education and family support. He is insightless in relation to the presence of his psychiatric illness and, unfortunately, his symptoms persist despite moderately high doses of anti-psychotic medication. He requires indefinite treatment with an anti-psychotic medication and I specifically recommend that his treatment be altered to Clozapine. It is my firm understanding, having assessed him, that he would consent to treatment with Clozapine and require a system of regular blood tests required for that medication.
(4) At the time of the alleged offence he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia consisting of a mental impairment. The mental impairment caused him not to know that the conduct he was undertaking was wrong because he believed that his life was in immediate and imminent risk if he did not act in the manner in which he did. On specific enquiry I was convinced that the accused understands the nature of the charge, is able to enter a plea, able to understand the nature of the trial, able to the follow the course of the trial, able to understand the substantial effect of evidence and able to give instructions to a legal practitioner”.
One aspect of your history is that you presented with what appeared to be serious psychotic symptoms in both 2005 and 2006. That did not apparently lead to any active treatment for you. The reasons for that are unknown, and there is no benefit in engaging in speculation about it. Dr Brennan, in her report, said under the heading “Defence of mental impairment”:
“Mr Pedley, at the time of the alleged offence, was experiencing untreated symptoms of chronic paranoid schizophrenia. It is clear that due to the nature of his delusional beliefs that these symptoms have caused him significant distress over a period of many years and grossly impacted on his capacity to engage with his family and the community. His chronic symptoms have caused him to experience fear due to the belief he is being persecuted, and it appears he has incorporated the victim into his paranoid delusional system. It appears that Mr Pedley was interpreting innocuous interactions as having persecutory motivation, to the point whereby he feared for his life. On the day of the alleged offences it appears that Mr Pedley was so fearful, and highly aroused, that he believed that he needed to kill the victim in order to protect himself from being murdered. It's my opinion that on the day of the alleged offences Mr Pedley was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct was wrong. It is my opinion that Mr Pedley meets the criteria for mental impairment defence under s 20, sub-s (1), Subparagraph B, of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997”.
It is plain that the evidence in this case, on what is the critical issue, is all one way. Under the circumstances, I regard it as being appropriate to direct that a verdict of not guilty, because of mental impairment, be recorded. The ground of that mental impairment is that pursuant to s 21(b) of the Act, you, Travis Pedley, at the time you attempted to kill Mr Coe, did not know that the conduct was wrong. That is you could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable persons, was wrong.
It follows next that I am obliged to declare you liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Act and I do so. I requested a report pursuant to s.41 of the Act in order to determine what form of order I should impose and, if appropriate, a certificate pursuant to s.47 of the Act. I received a report dated 4 August 2011 from Dr Ann Brennan, and I have also received a certificate pursuant to s.47 of the Act in relation to available services.
I therefore order that:
1 Travis Pedley be liable to a Custodial Supervision Order pursuant to s.26 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997;
2 that Travis Pedley be committed to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health; and
3 that pursuant to s 28 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act the nominal term of supervision of the order is 25 years to date from 8 October 2010.
0
0
0