Re Austin

Link copied
Case Copied 50 min read

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Austin [2013] QMHC 21

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH  IN RESPECT OF RHYS MICHAEL AUSTIN

PROCEEDING NO:

0185/11

DELIVERED ON:

15 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 April 2012, 24 April 2012, 24-25 July 2012, 31 July 2012, 3 December 2012, 6 February 2013 and 27 March 2013

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr E N McVie
Dr F T Varghese

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

The defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the alleged offence of common assault on 21 January 2007.1.       

The proceeding against the defendant in relation to the alleged offence of common assault on 21 January 2007 is discontinued and further proceedings must not be taken against the defendant for the acts constituting that offence.2.       

3. There is a reasonable doubt, pursuant to s 268 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), that the defendant committed the alleged offence of possession of tainted property on 2 April 2010.

The defendant is fit for trial in relation to the alleged offence of possession of tainted property on 2 April 2010.4.       

The proceeding against the defendant in relation to the count of possession of tainted property on 2 April 2010 is to continue according to law.5.       

There is no fact that is substantially material to the opinion of an expert witness as defined in s 269(1) of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) that is so in dispute it would be unsafe to make a decision on unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility in relation to the count of murder on 30 March 2010.6.       

The defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the alleged offence of murder on 30 March 2010.7.       

The proceeding against the defendant in relation to the alleged offence of murder on 30 March 2010 is discontinued and further proceedings must not be taken against the defendant for the acts constituting that offence.8.       

A Forensic Order is required detaining the defendant to The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service.9.       

Limited Community Treatment is not approved.10.     

The psychiatric and psychological reports presented during the hearing and the transcript of the hearing be released to the parties and the Attorney-General for use in the Metal Health Review Tribunal proceedings.11.     

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with common assault, murder and possession of tainted property – where defendant diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia – where defendant told numerous conflicting accounts of the events surrounding the alleged murder – whether a dispute of fact substantially material to the opinion of an expert witness as defined in s 269(1) of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) arises – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in the Schedule of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences – whether there was reasonable doubt pursuant…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Austin and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] QMHC 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Austin involved the defendant, Mr. Austin, who was charged with common assault, murder, and possession of tainted property. Mr. Austin was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and the court was required to determine whether he was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences. The court also had to decide whether a Forensic Order should be made and whether Limited Community Treatment should be approved. Dr. Pamela van de Hoef, who examined Mr. Austin, concluded that he was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences. The court found that Mr. Austin was of unsound mind at the time he committed the acts that resulted in the death of Ms. Girven. The court also found that there was reasonable doubt pursuant to s 268 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) that the defendant committed the alleged offence of possession of tainted property. The court decided that Mr. Austin should be placed on a Forensic Order, and Dr. Voita did not recommend any Limited Community Treatment at this time. The court's decision was based on Mr. Austin's severe symptoms, including command hallucinations from God to kill, his substantial lack of insight, his marked propensity to conceal symptoms, and the extreme seriousness of the index offence and assault charges. The court also considered the significant risk issues when Mr. Austin was unwell, and his ongoing treatment needs. The court's final orders were that Mr. Austin should be placed on a Forensic Order, and Dr. Voita did not recommend any Limited Community Treatment at this time.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Dr Grant concluded his report by advising:“I would caution against taking a simplistic view of his motivations for the offence and would stress that in my opinion the offence arose from a very complex psychotic mental state of which auditory hallucinations of a command type were only one aspect.”[53][53]Ibid, at p 2.Dr Pamela van de Hoef’s evidence Dr van de Hoef gave evidence at the hearing on 25 July 2012. In a report dated 21 October 2011, Dr Pamela van de Hoef said that Mr Austin gave her a similar account of the murder charge and in particular, he indicated that quite a while before the killing, he somehow got it into his head that he had to kill someone to prove he could do it. He said it was a developing idea that somehow got manifested in his thoughts and that he put himself into a position and was given an opportunity to do it a number of times. He said the idea started with voices and them thinking about him and that he could not tell the voices to stop because he agreed with them. He said he used to believe the voices were a person and then a computer and that he was still in that phase now. Dr van de Hoef indicated that Mr Austin said that when he failed to kill, he felt pretty bad and was filled with regret that he had not succeeded. He gave her a number of examples of the opportunities he had had over the years to kill somebody. He talked about an occasion in early 2006 when he had gone for a walk in the middle of the night into the bush at the back of his parents’ home. He had found a stick that looked like a weapon and by the time he got to the top of Mount Gravatt, he thought of using the weapon to kill someone. There were a few cars parked at the top and he thought he would kill someone there, but soon realised it was a difficult thing to do. He then asked the occupant of one of the cars for a smoke and walked away, thinking he would do it next time. The thought festered in his mind. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Austin was of unsound mind at the time he did the acts on 30 March 2010 which resulted in Ms Girven’s death on 31 March 2010. Dr Voita considered that if Mr Austin was found to be of unsound mind or unfit for trial by the Mental Health Court, he should be placed on a Forensic Order given the severity of his illness, his ongoing treatment needs and the significant risk issues when he is unwell. Dr Voita stated that if Mr Austin is placed on a Forensic Order by the Mental Health Court, she did not recommend any Limited Community Treatment at this time. At the time of her report, he had experienced a relapse of his psychotic illness, schizophrenia, and developed a major depressive disorder which she considered significantly increased his risk of violence and self harm. The relapse of his illness appears to have occurred in the context of a number of stressors including ongoing postponement of Mental Health Court proceedings. Dr Voita considered that in view of his severe symptoms which include command hallucinations from God to kill, his substantial lack of insight, his marked propensity to conceal symptoms and the extreme seriousness of the index offence and assault charges, Mr Austin should continue to receive treatment in High Secure, The Park, Wacol, being subject to a Forensic Order (SNFP).

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.