Re Clough - [2007] QMHC 2

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Clough [2007] QMHC 002

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF COLIN CLOUGH

PROCEEDING:

No 254 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 February 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING
PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr Wood
Dr Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. The defendant was not of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

2.   The defendant was not of diminished responsibility at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

3.   The defendant is fit for trial.

4.   The proceedings are to continue according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with murder – where psychiatric opinion indicated the defendant was suffering from a psychotic condition at time of alleged offence – where evidence that defendant was in state of voluntary intoxication from amphetamine consumption at time of alleged offence – whether the defendant was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act – whether intoxication contributed to that deprivation – whether defendant’s capacity to know that he ought not do the act was substantially impaired – whether that impairment was caused by a state of abnormality of mind – whether that impairment was caused or contributed to by self-induced intoxication

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2
Criminal Code 1899, s 304A

R v Cannon [1997] QCA 334 (cited)
R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr App R 261 (cited)
R v Gittens [1984] QB 698 (cited)
R v Miers [1985] 2 Qd R 138 (cited)
R v Nielsen [1990] 2 Qd R 578 (cited)
R v Rolph [1962] Qd R 262 (cited)
R v Whitworth [1989] 1 Qd R 437 (cited)

COUNSEL:

Mr R A East for the defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
Mr S Vasta for The Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid (Qld) 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 Clough [2010] QCA 120)

PHILIPPIDES J: The defendant, Colin Clough, a 39 year old man, is charged with the murder of his wife. The defendant’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offence has been referred to this court.

Circumstances of Offence

The defendant does not deny that he killed his wife, stabbing her several times with a kitchen knife. The incident occurred on 16 September 2005, at about 9.00 am at his mother’s house, where he and his wife were staying. They had gone to that address the previous night because the defendant did not feel safe at his own home. He awoke early on the day in question and began to feel anxious about having to return home and not feeling safe there. He believed that his wife and certain of…

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 Clough

Details

AGLC: Re Clough [2007] QMHC 2
Case: [2007] QMHC 2
Decision Date: 23 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Clough, the defendant was charged with the murder of an individual. The case came before the court to determine whether the defendant was mentally ill or incapable at the time of the offence. Psychiatric reports suggested that the defendant was suffering from a psychotic condition, and there was evidence that he was voluntarily intoxicated by amphetamines at the time of the offence. The court was tasked with deciding whether the defendant's capacity to know he ought not to do the act was substantially impaired and whether that impairment was caused by a state of abnormality of mind or self-induced intoxication.

The primary legal issue was whether the defendant's state of intoxication contributed to his deprivation of capacity to know that he ought not do the act. The court had to determine whether the defendant's mental illness, in combination with his intoxication, substantially impaired his capacity to know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong. Additionally, the court considered whether any impairment was caused by a state of abnormality of mind or by the defendant's self-induced intoxication.

The court found that the defendant's capacity to know that he ought not do the act was substantially impaired due to a state of abnormality of mind. The court reasoned that the defendant's psychotic condition and self-induced intoxication contributed to his impaired capacity. The court held that the defendant's intoxication did not absolve him of criminal responsibility as it did not cause the abnormality of mind but rather contributed to the impairment of his capacity. The court concluded that the defendant was not exempt from criminal responsibility based on mental illness or incapacity.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant was found to be criminally responsible for the offence of murder. The court did not make a declaration of mental illness or incapacity in relation to the defendant, as it found that his capacity to know that he ought not do the act was substantially impaired due to a state of abnormality of mind, which was not solely caused by his self-induced intoxication.

Orders