R v Weiss - [2005] SASC 338

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WEISS
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Bleby
6 September 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - PROBATION, PAROLE, RELEASE ON LICENCE AND REMISSIONS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - GENERALLY
Defendant not guilty by reason of mental incompetence of attempted murder (s 11 and s 270A, Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1936), two counts threatening a person with a firearm (s 47A, Criminal Law Consolidation Act), discharging a firearm so as to frighten a person (s 51(1), Summary Offences Act 1953), damaging property (s 85(3), Criminal Law Consolidation Act) and two counts of possessing a firearm without a licence (s 11(1), Firearms Act 1977) – Defendant admitted objective elements of all offences – Finding defendant incompetent to commit the offences due to mental illness – Defendant declared liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and committed to detention – Consideration of factors relevant to fixing limiting term as required by s 269O – Whether defendant should be released on licence – Consideration of factors relevant to release on licence (s 269S and s 269T Criminal Law Consolidation Act) – Effect on and responsibility of community in small country town – Determination of conditions having regard to available facilities – Limiting term of 7 years fixed – Defendant released on licence subject to conditions.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1936 (SA) s 11, s 47A, s 85(3), s 269G, s 269O, s 269P, s 269S, s 269T, s 270A; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 51(1); Firearms Act 1977 (SA) s 11(1); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18A, referred to.
R v T (1999) 75 SASR 235; R v Weiss [2004] SASC 86, considered.

R v WEISS
[2005] SASC 338

BLEBY J: Trent Anthony Weiss was charged with the attempted murder of Thomas Fletcher Kerr contrary to s 11 and s 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1936.
He was further charged with two counts of threatening Johanna Kate Kuykhoven and Glen Russell McDonald with a firearm contrary to s 47A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
He was also charged with discharging a firearm so as to frighten Senior Constable Andrew David Francis contrary to s 51(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1953.
There was one charge of damaging property, being light fixtures owned by the Electricity Trust of South Australia, contrary to s 85(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
Finally there were two counts of possessing a firearm without a licence contrary to s 11(1) of the Firearms Act 1977, one firearm being a sawn off rifle and the other being a single barrel shotgun.
All these alleged offences took place during the night of 29-30 January 2004 at Morgan, where Mr Weiss lived.
Mr Weiss pleaded not guilty to all counts by reason of mental incompetence, but through his counsel admitted the objective elements of each of the charges. The Director of Public Prosecutions conceded that he was mentally incompetent to commit the offences by reason of schizophrenia which was diagnosed following the offending. I made a declaration pursuant to s 269G of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to that effect on 6 June 2005. I made a further declaration pursuant to s 269O that Mr Weiss was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act and he was committed to detention in the Grove closed ward of Glenside Hospital. That was little more than a formality, as he had been in custody since his arrest on 30 January 2004, initially at Yatala but more recently at James Nash House and then Glenside.
I am now required by s 269O of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to fix what is called a “limiting term”. That is a term equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision that would, in my opinion, have been appropriate if Mr Weiss had been convicted of the offences to which I have referred. That term is not by way of punishment for the alleged offences, because Mr Weiss has been found not guilty of them by reason of mental incompetence. The only effect of the limiting term is that it determines the period during which the supervision order that I have made continues to operate. But even that is subject to revocation or variation under s 269P of the Act at any time during the limiting term.
The fixing of a limiting term is a somewhat artificial exercise. I cannot take into account the fact that Mr Weiss was a person of diminished responsibility because of the mental impairment[1], but I must take into account the other factors that would normally be brought to account in fixing a sentence for these offences. It is therefore necessary to recite some of those relevant facts and circumstances.
[1] Section 269O(2) Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and see R v T (1999) 75 SASR 235
Maximum penalty for the offences
I should have regard to, and Mr Weiss should be aware of, the maximum penalties which these offences attract. For attempted murder the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. For the two counts of threatening a person with a firearm the maximum penalty is $15,000 fine or imprisonment for four years for each offence. For the offence of discharging a firearm so as to frighten another person the maximum penalty is $10,000 fine or two years imprisonment. For the offence of causing damage exceeding $2,500 the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment, and for possessing a firearm without a licence the maximum penalty in one case is $50,000 fine or ten years imprisonment, and in the other case $20,000 fine or four years imprisonment.
The circumstances of the offending
Mr Weiss was 24 years of age at the time of the incidents and lived with his parents in Morgan. He was unemployed and had suffered from psychological problems since childhood. He was a user of alcohol and illicit drugs, in particular cannabis which he smoked heavily. That drug use most likely exacerbated his mental illness. He had difficulty in communicating with people, including his parents. He was withdrawn and suffered from depression and mood swings. Prior to the offending he had spent a brief period in Glenside Hospital. His psychological state deteriorated markedly in the weeks leading up to the offending. He had stopped taking his prescribed medication.
The primary victim of the offending, Tom Kerr, was 19 years old at the time. Mr Kerr and Mr Weiss had been friends for about 7 years. On the evening of 29 January 2004 Mr Weiss, Tom Kerr and a number of other friends were drinking at the house of Jeremy Jaeger. Previously that night Mr Weiss had been drinking with friends at a hotel. At one stage during the evening he left Mr Jaeger’s house and went with Tom Kerr, Melissa Sweet and Emma Little to pick up Melissa’s daughter. Ms Little was driving. She dropped Mr Kerr off at his home and then Mr Weiss and the others returned to Mr Jaeger’s house. Later that evening Mr Weiss left Mr Jaeger’s house without telling anyone and returned home, where he removed two guns and some ammunition belonging to his father from a locked cupboard in the shed. He returned to the street out the front of Mr Jaeger’s house, namely Gouge Street, near the intersection with Burra Road. The Weiss family home is also in Gouge Street.
Mr Kerr, who had returned to the party after eating dinner at home, came looking for the defendant. He was worried about him because he had left Mr Jaeger’s house without saying where he was going or saying goodbye. Mr Kerr saw Weiss standing in the middle of the road holding a gun under his chin as though he was about to shoot himself. Tom Kerr approached Mr Weiss and asked him what was going on. He was told to get away. Weiss was waving the gun around and kept telling Mr Kerr to go away. Kerr began to walk backwards towards Mr Jaeger’s house. He turned, and Weiss fired a single shot which hit Tom Kerr in the back of his left shoulder. He fell to the ground and yelled out, “You’ve shot me”. That was the alleged attempted murder.
Two neighbours, Johanna Kuykhoven and Glen McDonald heard the gun shot and ran out into the street. As they approached the two men Weiss said, “Get back or I’ll shoot you” or something to that effect. He was waving the gun in their direction. That was the subject of the two charges of threatening with a firearm. They turned around and began to run back towards their house. As they were running they heard more shots. Mr McDonald yelled out, “What are you doing?” and Weiss asked him to look after Tom. Weiss then ran away along Seventh Street, which is the continuation of Gouge Street after the intersection with Burra Road. As he continued on his way he was shooting randomly at street lights and at signs. Mr McDonald gave assistance to Mr Kerr and Ms Kuykhoven called the police.
Mr Weiss continued to shoot at streetlights as he walked through the town. This was the subject of the damaging property charge. By this stage it was about 1.30 a.m. on 30 January 2004. Senior Constable Francis, the local police officer in Morgan, had received a phone call from the Berri Police Station advising him of the reports of gun shots and that Mr Weiss had shot a person. Constable Francis, who was on leave at the time, went outside to see if he could hear any gun shots. After about 5 minutes he heard three loud shots so he went into the front office of the police station, which is attached to the police officer’s residence, to locate his police issued firearm. While he was inside the office he heard another two shots which sounded as if they were very close to the police station. While Constable Francis was trying to open the gun safe he heard Mr Weiss outside the front of the police station banging on the front door and yelling out, “Andy, come outside you bastard and shoot me”. Constable Francis saw him looking through the front window of the police station and banging on the window with the barrel of one of the guns. While he was banging on the window Mr Weiss yelled out again, “Come on Andy, I know you are in there, come out and shoot me you fucking bastard”. Constable Francis lay down under the window hoping that he would not be seen and that Weiss would walk away. He was understandably fearful for his own safety and also for that of his wife and two small children who were in the house attached to the police station. Weiss stayed at the window for about a minute continually banging on the glass with barrel of the gun. He then walked away from the police station towards the adjoining private residence. Constable Francis saw him through the window with the barrel of the gun raised and pointed towards his house. He heard Weiss yelling and then saw him put the barrel of the gun under his chin. Weiss walked out onto the road and started to walk down Eighth Street with the gun still under his chin and Constable Francis radioed Berri Police to advise them of the situation.
While he was on the radio, Constable Francis heard two more shots which sounded as though they had come from the rear of his house. He ran back inside and found his wife and two children, who were by that stage awake, and together the family ran to the carport and got into their car. As they were getting into the car the sensor light at the front of the carport was activated and Constable Francis heard another gunshot. As he backed out of the driveway onto Third Street he saw Mr Weiss standing in the middle of the intersection of Third Street and Ninth Street about 30 metres away, still holding a gun raised in the air. He came towards the car firing more shots as Constable Francis drove away down Third Street in the opposite direction. It is not possible to say precisely in which direction the shots were fired but Constable Francis believed that Weiss was shooting at his car as he was driving off. This was the foundation for the offence of discharging a firearm so as to frighten.
Meanwhile a large crowd of neighbours had gathered in the street where Tom Kerr had been shot. People could hear gunshots going off in the town and as most people were worried about being shot they went home. Mr Kerr was taken away in an ambulance. One of Mr Weiss’ friends, Scott Brown, decided to go and look for him to see if he was alright. He was worried that Mr Weiss would shoot himself.
Mr Brown walked down Burra Road away from the town. As he got near the speedway he saw Mr Weiss coming towards him and called out, “Trent don’t shoot, it’s me, Browny”. He saw that Mr Weiss had the shotgun in his hand but that it was pointing down at the ground. He was crying uncontrollably and kept saying, “I’ve shot Tommy”. Scott Brown tried to calm and console Mr Weiss. He told him to put the gun down, and he did. The two then sat together on the ground.
A couple of minutes later the defendant’s father arrived. He picked up the shotgun. Mr Weiss senior and Scott Brown took Trent back to a neighbour’s house where his mother was waiting. The defendant was still crying and very upset. He lay down on the couch and slept for a few hours. Early the next morning the police came to the neighbour’s house and the defendant was arrested. The sawn-off rifle was recovered by police with the defendant’s assistance, from a garden where he had discarded it the night before.
The gunshot wound to Mr Kerr was not life threatening but did cause him considerable pain. He was initially taken by ambulance to the Waikerie Hospital where a surgeon was flown in by rescue helicopter to operate on him. He was then flown to the Royal Adelaide Hospital where he stayed for a number of days.
Following Mr Kerr’s discharge he was on medication for his pain. He found it very difficult to lift his arms and experienced restriction to his normal range of movement as a result of the gunshot wound to his shoulder. He was unable to bend over, and coughing and sneezing caused him considerable pain. He will presumably be left with a scar at the site of the wound. Mr Kerr has ongoing pain as a result of his injury including spinal pain which is especially bad in the mornings and makes it difficult for him to straighten his back. He also suffered a punctured lung and says that he still becomes short of breath when he goes running. Mr Kerr received some counselling following the shooting, however he now says that he does not need further counselling and does not suffer from any ongoing emotional problems.
Tom Kerr has generously forgiven the defendant for his behaviour and is understanding of his mental illness. The two remain friends and Mr Kerr has been supportive of the defendant since he was taken into custody, writing to him and visiting him once when he was in James Nash House. Mr Kerr’s family has also been forgiving and understanding of the situation and has been supportive of Mr Weiss’ parents. Mr Kerr supports the defendant’s return to Morgan.
Johanna Kuykhoven and Glen McDonald were not able to be contacted by the social worker who completed the victim impact report, however clearly they would both have been very frightened at the time that they were threatened with the gun. Many other residents of Morgan were fearful on the night of the offending as they were woken by the sound of gunshots in the streets near to their homes.
The other victims of the offending were Constable Francis and his family, namely his wife, son and daughter who were aged 9 and 7 years respectively at the time of the offending. Constable Francis was very afraid on the night of the offending both for his own safety and that of his family. He was the sole police officer stationed at Morgan and was on leave at the time of the offences. He was unarmed and did not have direct access to his police issue firearm as SAPOL policy dictates that when officers go on leave they must hand in their firearms. Consequently Constable Francis was afraid that he would not be able adequately to protect himself or his family on that night.
When the defendant was standing outside of the police station yelling abuse at Constable Francis and knocking on the door and banging on the window Constable Francis thought that Weiss wanted to kill him. His family heard shots being fired outside their house. The two small children were woken up in the middle of the night and the whole family had to run to the car in order to escape whilst the defendant continued to fire the gun. Understandably they were very traumatised by this experience, particularly the children. One of the children lost a large amount of hair from the top of her head in the months following the incident which the family doctor put down to stress. Mrs Frances reported that both the children are still scared whenever they hear loud noises and will often run to their parents’ bed in the middle of the night seeking reassurance. Both children now require night lights on in their bedrooms to sleep and the older child has made up a spare bed in his room so that his sister can come and sleep in his bedroom if she becomes scared during the night. One of the children’s teachers has reported their concern over a picture the child drew in class of the defendant shooting outside of the police station. When questioned about this the child told his parents that he was especially fearful that his father was going to be killed on that night. The family has been involved in some counselling sessions since the incident and, although neither parent feels the need for further counselling for themselves, they are still considering whether ongoing counselling would be beneficial to the children.
I accept that Mr Weiss of his own volition has written a genuine letter of apology to Constable Francis and his family. Constable Francis is no longer the police officer at Morgan.
I have already mentioned some of the defendant’s personal circumstances and background. He was relatively young, at the age of 24. That is a relevant factor. He has one conviction for a serious offence. That was the offence, committed on 5 February 1999, of assisting an offender in an armed robbery. The circumstances of the offence were summarised by the Full Court of which I was a member on the defendant’s appeal against sentence in the following terms:[2]
(The appellant) was driving a car belonging to a friend. That friend and some others were in the car. The plan was to go crabbing. They all set off from the Riverland for that purpose. They had all consumed alcohol, including Mr Weiss. At some stage Smyth, the owner of the car, told Mr Weiss to drive to Adelaide. This apparently indicated some change of plans, but Mr Weiss had no idea what Smyth was up to. Smyth then told Mr Weiss to stop the car at a point near a Caltex service station. Smyth left the car and went to the service station. Shortly thereafter, he returned in a hurry and told Mr Weiss to drive off. Mr Weiss did that, and drove the car a short distance.
Mr Weiss was sentenced on the basis that during that short journey he learned that Smyth had committed an armed robbery at the service station, and that Mr Weiss was guilty of the offence charged because he assisted Mr Smyth to flee by continuing to drive the car. It was accepted … that Mr Weiss had no knowledge of the planned armed robbery beforehand, and did not realise it had been committed until he had begun to drive away.
[2] R v Weiss [2004] SASC 86 at [7]-[8]
After an early denial of involvement Mr Weiss later admitted his guilt and co-operated fully with the police. There was evidence before the Court at that time that Mr Weiss might then well be in the early phase of “a major psychotic illness such as schizophrenia”. He was described by a psychiatrist as “a vulnerable individual and likely to be victimised or pressured by others”.

In a report which was admitted on the hearing of the appeal Dr Baigent, a psychiatrist, concluded:
I suspect Mr Weiss had had a low level psychotic illness for some years, probably two or three and this has affected his ability to concentrate and his judgment. These facilities will be impaired with drug or alcohol intoxication more so in Mr Weiss’s case than another individual who does not have a psychotic illness. … I could well imagine that while intoxicated and psychotic, not only would he be vulnerable but also quite malleable and easily influenced.
I mention these factors in some detail because they give some indication of the ameliorating circumstances of that offending for which the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed a suspended sentence of one year and eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year, and substituted for that sentence a conviction and a release on a good behaviour bond to be under the supervision of a probation officer, subject to a number of conditions. However, I also mention it because of what was said at that time by the Court which is relevant to Mr Weiss’ present circumstances and to any conditions which I might impose upon his release on licence. I will return to that matter a little later.
The defendant’s antecedent record also shows one other conviction for producing cannabis, an offence committed on 7 March 2002, for which he was fined $400.
I must take into account Mr Weiss’ co-operation with the police, his ready admission of the objective elements of the offences and what I am satisfied is his genuine and heartfelt contrition to those he traumatised so severely on 29-30 January 2004. On the other hand, if fixing a sentence, I would have to give significant weight to factors of personal and general deterrence. These are multiple and serious offences.
If I was sentencing Mr Weiss for these offences I would have fixed a single sentence under s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. Taking into account all those factors, and particularly the defendant’s age and vulnerability, I would have taken a starting point of 12 years imprisonment. I would have reduced that on account of the plea of guilty, co-operation with the police and general contrition, to a head sentence of approximately eight years and nine months. I would take into account the period that he has spent in custody and in detention for treatment since 30 January 2004. I would have fixed a head sentence of seven years imprisonment from today.
Accordingly, the limiting term I must now fix is a period of seven years from today, 6 September 2005.
Whether the defendant should be released
Having declared Mr Weiss to be liable to supervision under Part 8 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and having committed him to detention, albeit only for a short time pending clarification of some aspects of Mr Weiss’ conduct and best future treatment, I must now consider whether he should be released and, if so, the conditions that he will be required to observe if he is released.
For that purpose I have had the benefit of comprehensive and detailed reports of Dr Andrew Czechowicz, Dr Craig Raeside, Dr Narain Nambiar and Dr Michael Baigent, all of whom are qualified and experienced psychiatrists. I have also had the benefit of a report of the attitudes to the defendant’s release of the victims of the offences, other than Ms Kuykhoven and Mr McDonald, who could not be contacted, and of Mr Weiss’ parents.
Dr Czechowicz has treated Mr Weiss at various times since his temporary admission to Glenside Hospital in 1999. He reported on his mental incompetence to commit the offence and has seen Mr Weiss on numerous occasions since he has been in custody and detention.
Dr Raeside has also had occasion to observe Mr Weiss since April 1999 in connection with his previous offending. He too has seen him on a number of occasions since he was taken into custody in relation to these offences.
Dr Nambiar, while not involved in Mr Weiss’ treatment following his earlier offence, has been, to the present, his treating psychiatrist and has seen him on numerous occasions since the diagnosis of schizophrenia following these offences.
Dr Baigent has been a visiting psychiatrist in the Riverland and saw Mr Weiss in that capacity in November 1999. He saw him again for the purposes of providing a report to the Court in 2000 and has seen Mr Weiss on several occasions since these offences.
All the doctors are agreed that as at January 2004 Mr Weiss was suffering from a mental illness known as schizophrenia, and had been suffering from that illness for some years. It was aggravated at the time by Mr Weiss’ failure to take the medication that he had been prescribed and by the regular consumption of alcohol, cannabis and amphetamines. The consequence of schizophrenia, as I found earlier in the proceedings, was that Mr Weiss, at the time of the offending, either did not know the nature and quality of his conduct at the time or did not know that it was wrong.
In deciding whether Mr Weiss should be released and the conditions which should apply to his release, s 269S of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act requires me to apply the principle that restrictions on his freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to a minimum consistent with the safety of the community.
By s 269T of the Act I must also have regard to:
(a) the nature of Mr Weiss’ mental impairment;
(b)whether Mr Weiss is, or would if released, be likely to endanger another person or persons generally;
(c)whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of Mr Weiss in the community;
(d)whether Mr Weiss is likely to comply with the conditions of a licence; and
(e)any other matters that I think relevant.
Since his detention and treatment all the doctors are agreed that, with the right medication, Mr Weiss’ condition has stabilised and has improved markedly. Dr Baigent has commented that Mr Weiss’ mental state is “far better than I have ever seen it before”. Mr Weiss is now aware that he had a mental illness and accepts that fact. He is alive to the need for ongoing treatment. He is aware that ingestion of drugs and alcohol will place him at risk of relapsing. However, he is now feeling much better in himself, and relationships with his parents have improved significantly. He is feeling more positive about himself and his future than he ever has before.
Dr Nambiar, his current treating psychiatrist, has commented:
The multidisciplinary care plan team were unanimous in their decision that Mr Weiss appears to be functioning optimally, that his response to medication has been extremely good and he is currently in relative remission. Mr Weiss has excellent living skills and should he return to live with his parents would in time be able to move into more independent accommodation in the future.
Mr Weiss will, of course, need to maintain his medication and will need regular psychiatric review and monitoring. He may need psychological counselling in the early stages to assist with relapse intervention. He will be greatly assisted by being able to apply himself to useful activity and employment, and I am satisfied that he has the motivation to apply himself in that regard.
There are obvious difficulties in rehabilitation in a small country town without the immediate availability of services and assistance of the type readily available in the metropolitan area. I expressed concern at some stage about the availability of those necessary services if he was released to Morgan, coupled with the access that he would obviously have to the group and peer pressures to which he was previously subject, particularly in relation to the ingestion of drugs and alcohol.
The psychiatrists have specifically addressed their minds to this question. I am satisfied that Mr Weiss’ present stability and the substantial improvement in his mental health justifies his release, and that that should be to Morgan where he has the support of his family. I am fortified in this view by the careful preparations that have been made for his release and ongoing review, and by the investigation by Dr Nambiar and his multidisciplinary team of the availability of the necessary support services.
Not least of these are Mr Weiss’ parents and their awareness of the discharge plans that have been developed. They are probably now more understanding of their son’s present condition and more supportive of him than they have ever been able to be in the past. They are well aware of the stigma associated with mental illness. They are aware of the possible community reaction to his return to Morgan. I am satisfied that they will provide him with the necessary support required and will assist in assuring that he receives adequate follow-up in connection with all support services in the area.
I am satisfied that the arrangements that have been made for those support services through Mr Weiss’ local general practitioner, through the mental health team and the continued availability of the visiting Riverland psychiatrist, coupled with the supervision of an allocated Community Corrections Officer, will ensure the ongoing external support that Mr Weiss will need. I am satisfied that, with the conditions that I will impose and the support that is available, there will be little or no risk to the safety of the community caused by Mr Weiss’ release to his home in Morgan.
I have already referred to the nature of Mr Weiss’ mental illness and that it is likely to remain well controlled. There is no reason to believe that he will not behave like an ordinary member of the community. I do not believe that he is likely to endanger any other person or persons generally in the community. The potentially awkward situation of the sole police officer in Morgan and members of his family being some of the principal victims of the events of 29-30 January 2004 is avoided by the fact that Mr Francis is no longer the local police officer and no longer lives in the town.
I am satisfied that there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of Mr Weiss in the community, and I think he is sufficiently well motivated to be likely to comply with the conditions of the licence that I will impose.
However, if Mr Weiss’ recovery is to be guaranteed, he will also need the support of others. In deciding to release him I need to address some brief remarks to four groups of people in particular.
The first group if the community of Morgan. Morgan is a small Riverland town. Trent Weiss is known personally to many in the town. He is now probably known by reputation to most people in the town. I have no doubt that the community was shocked and traumatised by the events of 29-30 January 2004. Many may be deeply suspicious at Trent’s return to Morgan to live. They may naturally think that if it happened before it can happen again. However, those fears should now be set aside. There is no room or justification for any community anger or resentment against Trent for what happened. He was mentally ill at the time and he now knows that. He has expressed his genuine regret and contrition for the harm he caused. He has been reconciled to his principal victim. As I have said, there is little or no continuing risk to the safety of the community by his release. However, I would go further and say that Trent’s road to full recovery will also be greatly assisted if the attitude that the community now shows to him is a positive, respectful, supportive and welcoming one, rather than one of unjustified suspicion and resentment. I believe that he himself will respond positively to that sort of positive approach from the community.
The second group I would want to address are Trent’s friends in the town, his peer group, the people who were at the party and at the pub that evening – his mates. Of course Trent needs to be accepted back into the group. That is part of the general community responsibility. But this group of friends has a very special responsibility. If Trent had been severely physically injured for some reason and came back to the town with a major permanent physical disability, I am sure that his friends would rally and help and support him where necessary. It is no different with a mental illness. He will need support from this group, not physical support as with the aftermath of a severe bodily injury, but support and encouragement in avoiding all things which may aggravate his condition. I refer particularly to consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs. Trent will need to look to this group to support him and encourage him in his abstinence from drugs and alcohol. This group in particular will need to avoid putting temptation in his way and to be conscious of the restrictions that he must observe.
The third group I must address are Mr & Mrs Weiss. You have now developed, I think, a much better understanding of Trent’s condition and of his need for support. Despite an earlier suggestion, whether it be true or not, concerning exposure to cannabis and alcohol at home, I am satisfied that this is most unlikely, and that you will take your responsibilities towards Trent very seriously. He will need your support and encouragement by avoiding exposure to drugs and alcohol. Furthermore, I believe that you now realise the great dangers that can arise if there is any access to firearms at home. Those are the negative things. Most of all, I am sure that Trent will respond to the love and affection which only you as parents can give him by maintaining open and frank communication with him about all aspects of his life and health. To him and to yourselves you will have an ongoing responsibility to be alive to and to take a continuing interest in all his activities and wellbeing. I believe that you have Trent’s best interests at heart and will provide him with that necessary support and assistance. It will be most important and in everybody’s best interests that if you are in any way concerned about Trent’s wellbeing or his ability to comply with the conditions of his release, you make your concerns known to his Community Corrections Officer or medical advisers. In that way, if anything of concern does occur, it can be dealt with at an early stage and the possibility of any future harm can be avoided.
Finally, I must address some remarks to Trent himself. You had an early warning of your mental illness following your arrest for assisting an offender back in 1999. I accept that you were not fully aware of your condition at that time. Indeed, it was still developing. The Full Court’s sentence on appeal reflected that. You have now learned the hard way what can happen if you do not keep up your medication and if you consume alcohol and drugs. Your condition makes you particularly vulnerable to those substances. However, I believe that you have learned from that experience and that you now have the will to avoid any future relapse. If I were not so satisfied, I would be reluctant to order your release now.
You must understand, however, that for the duration of the limiting term I have fixed, it will be fundamentally important for your future health and wellbeing that you observe all the conditions which I will need to impose and which will be explained to you. It will be hard on occasions not to drink alcohol with your friends and not to take drugs if that is what they do. But I believe that, with the support and love of your parents and the respect that I hope your friends will have for you, you will be able to resist that temptation, and that if you do have any difficulties with complying with any of the conditions, you will talk frankly about that with your parents and with your Community Corrections Officer and your medical advisers.
The order of the Court will be that you be released on licence subject to the conditions which will now be explained to you.