Re CAW - [2007] QMHC 34

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re CAW [2007] QMHC 34

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF CAW

PROCEEDING:

0189 of 2006

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 July 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING
PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr Wood
Dr Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   That the defendant was not of unsound mind nor of diminished responsibility as described in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offence;

2.   That the defendant is fit for trial; and

3.   That the proceedings in respect of the alleged offence should continue according to law

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with one count of murder – where defendant diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder – where divergence in expert opinion as to the nature of defendant’s mental condition at the relevant time – where evidence that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged offence – whether defendant was deprived of any of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offence – whether defendant was substantially impaired so as to be of diminished responsibility – whether defendant is fit for trial

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

Re GMB (2002) 130 A Crim R 187, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr J D Farmer for the Defendant
Mr W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health

Mr M R Byrne for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

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

The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

* Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed (R v CAW [2010] QCA 103)

PHILIPPIDES J: The defendant, a 25 year old man, is charged with the murder on 25 March 2006 of the defendant’s two year old nephew, the son of the defendant’s brother.

The defendant’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offence has been referred to this court.

Circumstances of the Alleged Offence

At about 8.00 pm on 25 March 2006, the defendant’s brother B and his wife drove with their son to visit their parents’ house. Also residing at that address were another brother and the defendant, who was living in a caravan on the property at the time.

B and his family had travelled to the address to report the news that he had just been accepted to a theological college. On arrival they saw that B’s son was sleeping and as they did not anticipate staying long they left the child asleep in the car rather than waking him. They parked the car at the side of the house. Family members report that when B and his wife came into the house, the defendant was present, but that he went outside shortly afterwards. The family thought nothing of this. (There existed a significant long‑standing animosity by the defendant towards his brother B which had involved physical altercations. The defendant also had overtly expressed a hatred for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re CAW 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: [2007] QMHC 34
Decision Date: 25 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re CAW, the defendant was charged with one count of murder. The defendant had been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, but there was a divergence in expert opinion regarding the nature of the defendant's mental condition at the relevant time. The evidence presented suggested that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged offence. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was deprived of any of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offence, and whether the defendant was substantially impaired so as to be of diminished responsibility. The court also had to consider whether the defendant was fit for trial.

The court examined the expert evidence and considered the nature of the defendant's mental condition at the time of the alleged offence. The court acknowledged the divergence in expert opinion, but ultimately found that the defendant was not deprived of any of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offence. The court also found that the defendant was not substantially impaired so as to be of diminished responsibility, and that the defendant was fit for trial. The court relied on the evidence presented, including the defendant's level of intoxication and the nature of the alleged offence, in reaching its decision.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, including expert evidence regarding the defendant's mental condition. The court found that the defendant was not deprived of any of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offence, and that the defendant was not substantially impaired so as to be of diminished responsibility. The court also found that the defendant was fit for trial. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence, and a balanced assessment of the competing expert opinions.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was fit for trial, and that the trial should proceed as scheduled. The court also ordered that the defendant be remanded in custody until the trial date. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, and a balanced assessment of the legal issues presented. The court's decision was ultimately in the interests of justice, and in accordance with the relevant legal principles.

Orders