Re CWB - [2003] QMHC 12

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:	CWB, Re [2003] QMHC 012
PARTIES:	REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN RESPECT OF CWB
PROCEEDING NO:	203 of 2002
DELIVERED ON:	17 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	28 March, 8, 25 July 2003
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:	Dr D A Grant Dr J F Wood
FINDINGS AND ORDERS:	*1. At the time of the alleged offence, the defendant was not of unsound mind as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act* 2000 (Qld); 2. At the time of the alleged offence, the defendant was of diminished responsibility as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld); 3. The defendant is fit for trial; 4. Order that proceedings against the defendant for manslaughter be continued according to law.**
CATCHWORDS:	MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with murder of terminally ill mother – where defendant had personality disorder – where defendant had pathological relationship with mother –where conflicting expert psychiatric evidence as to whether defendant suffered from depressive disorder and if so, the nature of the disorder – where conflicting expert psychiatric evidence as to whether defendant suffered from “mental disease or natural mental infirmity” – where conflicting expert psychiatric evidence as to whether defendant was deprived of any of the capacities in s 27 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether at the time of the alleged offence defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in schedule 2 of Mental Health Act2000 (Qld) MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – whether defendant of diminished responsibility at the time of the alleged offence – where defendant had personality disorder – where conflicting expert psychiatric evidence as to whether defendant suffered from depressive disorder – whether defendant suffered from “abnormality of mind” – where conflicting expert psychiatric evidence as to whether defendant suffered from substantial impairment of any of the capacities in s 27 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether abnormality of mind substantially impaired defendant’s capacity to know that he ought not do the act Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 27, s 304A Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) schedule 2 R v Ford [1972] QWN 5 Re GMB (2002) 130 A Crim R 187, referred to Re Hill, Mental Health Tribunal, 19 January 2001, Chesterman J, cited Re Lloyd [2001] QMHT 003, cited R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 185, cited R v Rolph [1962] Qd R 262, cited Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358, cited R v Whitworth [1989] 1 Qd R 437, applied
COUNSEL:	M Lehane for the Director of Public Prosecutions B Devereaux for the defendant J Tate (on 28 March 2003) and W Isdale (on 8, 25 July 2003) for the Director of Mental Health
SOLICITORS:	The Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health

WILSON J: CWB [“the defendant”] has…

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 CWB

Details

AGLC: Re CWB [2003] QMHC 12
Case: [2003] QMHC 12
Decision Date: 17 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re CWB, the defendant was charged with the murder of his terminally ill mother. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant was suffering from mental illness or incapacity at the time of the offence, and whether this impacted his responsibility for the crime. The central issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of sections 27 and 28 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld). The court had to assess conflicting expert psychiatric evidence regarding the defendant's mental state, including whether he suffered from a depressive disorder, a mental disease or natural mental infirmity, or any impairment of his mental capacities. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the defendant's mental condition constituted an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his capacity to know that he ought not to have committed the act.

The court carefully reviewed the expert evidence presented by both parties, noting the differences in diagnosis and opinion. It considered the defendant's personality disorder and his pathological relationship with his mother. The court found that while there was evidence of a depressive disorder, there was no consensus on whether this disorder amounted to a "mental disease or natural mental infirmity" under the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld). The court also evaluated the impact of any mental condition on the defendant's capacities as outlined in section 27 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), concluding that there was no deprivation of the defendant's capacities to the extent required by the legislation. The court further determined that the defendant did not suffer from unsoundness of mind as described in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) and did not have an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his capacity to know that he ought not to have committed the act.

Orders