Re Bosanquet - [2011] QMHC 24

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Bosanquet [2011] QMHC 24

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF DAVID ANDREW BOSANQUET

PROCEEDING NO:

0045/11

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September & 2 November 2011.

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J Lawrence
Dr A Davison

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:
CATCHWORDS:

That at the time of the three alleged offences on 4 October 2010 and 5 October 2010 the subject of the reference the defendant was of unsound mind as defined in the Schedule of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).1.

That the defendant be detained in the Mackay Authorised Mental Health Service.2.

That limited community treatment is approved to commence immediately at the discretion of the authorised psychiatrist, on the conditions set out in the submission of the Director of Mental Health.3.

That the defendant have no contact with the victims of the alleged offences.4.

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with one count of unlawful stalking and two counts of arson – whether defendant deprived of the capacity to understand the nature of the act, the capacity of control or the capacity to know that he ought not do the act under s 27(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether defendant intoxicated by cannabis or alcohol at the time of the offences – whether limited community treatment is appropriate – whether a non-contact order should be made pursuant to ss 313B(1) and 313C of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

J Briggs for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

A Lossberg for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

Ann LYONS J:

The charges

David Andrew Bosanquet is charged with three offences, namely one count of unlawful stalking on 4 October 2010 and two counts of arson on 5 October 2010.

Pursuant to two references filed on 21 February 2011 and 6 May 2011 the Director of Mental Health has referred the question of Mr Bosanquet’s mental condition at the time of the commission of the alleged offences to this Court for determination.

The circumstances of the charges

It is alleged that on 4 October 2010 Mr Bosanquet left a series of voicemail messages on the telephone of his ex partner which were hostile and aggressive. The complainant and the defendant had been in a relationship which was ‘on and off’ over the previous 21 years. They had recently begun seeing each other again and the defendant had resided in a caravan next door to the complainant’s caravan at the Proserpine Caravan Park.

The defendant however moved from the caravan park after the complainant once again ceased their relationship due to his aggressive and unstable behaviour. The voicemail messages to the complainant were all aggressive, abusive and threatening and were made between 3.56 pm…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Bosanquet

Details

AGLC: Re Bosanquet [2011] QMHC 24
Case: [2011] QMHC 24
Decision Date: 12 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Bosanquet involved a defendant charged with unlawful stalking and two counts of arson. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant was deprived of the capacity to understand the nature of the act, the capacity of control, or the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act under section 27(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). This decision was crucial in establishing whether the defendant's actions were influenced by intoxication from cannabis or alcohol at the time of the offences. The court also needed to consider whether limited community treatment was appropriate for the defendant and whether a non-contact order should be made under sections 313B(1) and 313C of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. The primary concern was to ascertain the defendant's mental state at the time of the offences, particularly whether he was deprived of the relevant capacities under the Criminal Code. The court had to weigh the evidence concerning the defendant's intoxication and its impact on his ability to understand and control his actions. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the most suitable form of treatment and whether a non-contact order would be appropriate under the Mental Health Act.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state and intoxication. The court found that the defendant was indeed deprived of the relevant capacities as required by the Criminal Code. The evidence supported the conclusion that his actions were influenced by intoxication, which impaired his understanding and control. Consequently, the court determined that limited community treatment was appropriate, and a non-contact order was necessary to ensure the defendant's mental health and safety. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the defendant's circumstances and the need to balance public safety with appropriate treatment.

The court's final orders included the declaration that the defendant was deprived of the relevant capacities under the Criminal Code, the implementation of limited community treatment, and the making of a non-contact order under the Mental Health Act. These orders reflected the court's determination that the defendant required specific mental health interventions while also addressing the need for public safety and appropriate legal consequences for his actions.

Orders