Re Carpenter

[2008] QMHC 17

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Carpenter [2008] QMHC 17

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF SCOTT EDWARD CARPENTER

PROCEEDING NO:

270 of 2006

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2008

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING
 PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr F T Varghese
Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   In relation to the offences of serious assault and commit public nuisance:

a.  the Court makes no finding as to soundness of mind at the relevant times;

In relation to the offences of possession of a dangerous drug, driving under the influence, breach of bail on 23 May 2007, possession of a dangerous drug on 21 August 2007, possession of a utensil on the same date, obstruct police on the same date, possession of a dangerous drug on 5 December 2007 and possession of a utensil or pipe on 5 December 2007:2.   

a. the defendant was not of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the relevant times;  

3.   In relation to the offence of arson:

a. the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant suffers from schizophrenic illness – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the relevant time.

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

J Briggs for the Defendant
W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health
S Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

1. PHILIPPIDES J:  Scott Edward Carpenter is charged with a number of offences.  In relation to two of those offences, serious assault on 24 June 2006 and commit public nuisance on 3 May 2007, there is a dispute of fact not attributable to mental illness giving rise to a reasonable doubt and in those circumstances, the Court makes no finding as to soundness of mind at the relevant time.

1. In relation to the following offences: possession of a dangerous drug on 24 June 2006; driving under the influence on 16 March 2007; breach of bail on 23 May 2007; possession of a dangerous drug on 21 August 2007; possession of a utensil on the same date; obstruct police on the same date; possession of a dangerous drug on 5 December 2007; and possession of a utensil or pipe on the same date, I am satisfied that the defendant was not of unsound mind.

1. The remaining offence alleged against the defendant is one of arson on 22 June 2006.  That relates to the defendant's conduct in setting fire to his mother's house.  In relation to that matter, there is a difference of opinion between Dr Bruxner and Dr Butler as to whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time. 

1. There is no dispute that the defendant suffers from a mental illness.  The issue is whether there was relevant deprivation. He has a long history of schizophrenic illness.  The defendant gave a number of accounts over a period of time in relation to the arson charge and the difference of opinion between the psychiatrists centres on whether the defendant's explanation is accepted as indicating psychotic symptoms of a nature such as to deprive him of one of the relevant capacities.  The difficulty which Dr Butler had, in concluding that there was a unsoundness of mind at the relevant time, was in accepting that such psychotic symptoms were present, in particular the account which Dr Bruxner accepted as indicating passivity phenomena.  I note that Dr Butler did concede that the description of the general symptoms as reported by the defendant, at page 2 of his report, of hearing voices and, less commonly, of seeing an apparition looking like a ghost could be accepted as credible.

1. I also note that Dr Butler conceded that Dr Bruxner did have the advantage of having greater contact with the defendant and access to greater material, in concluding that the defendant's report as to what occurred at the relevant time ought to be accepted as indicating an operative mental illness of such a nature as to deprive the defendant of the capacity of control.  In addition, I note that Dr Butler was prepared in his report to conclude that the defendant was, as a result of his schizophrenic illness, impaired in his capacity, although not deprived.

1. Where Dr Butler had difficulty, and where his opinion was significantly influenced was the matter of the delay and the timing of the detailing of the symptoms, in particular the passivity phenomena described by the defendant.  Dr Bruxner was able to provide an explanation for that delay and for the evolving nature of the accounts as being attributable to gradual improvement in the defendant’s condition and accompanying insight. 

1. Dr Bruxner’s view was the view preferred by both the assisting psychiatrists and it is a view which I also find persuasive, particularly in the context of the ongoing and long-standing schizophrenic illness that the defendant has suffered from.

1. In the final analysis, I am persuaded that the opinion of Dr Bruxner ought to be preferred, particularly in the context of his greater familiarity and contact with the defendant, the access to material that he has had and the explanation which he has put forward to the Court for the delay in the reporting of the critical symptomology.

1. In those circumstances, I find in relation to the matter of the arson that the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time.  In relation to the question of future management and fitness for trial, those matters will be adjourned to tomorrow for further consideration and in particular whether (and the nature of) any forensic order should be made and whether the defendant is fit for trial or temporarily unfit for trial.