Re Davis

[2013] QMHC 9

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Davis [2013] QMHC 9

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY LEGAL AID QUEENSLAND IN RESPECT OF FARON WESLEY DAVIS

PROCEEDING NO:

 0287 of 2011

DELIVERED ON:

Delivered ex tempore on 15 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2013

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr E N McVie
Dr M L Khoo

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

That the defendant was of unsound mind as described in the Schedule of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences.1.          

That the proceedings according to law against the defendant are discontinued and further proceedings must not be taken against the defendant for the acts constituting the offences.2.          

3.That a Forensic Order be made pursuant to s 288 of the Mental Health Act 2000 detaining the defendant to the Townsville Network Authorised Mental Health Service.          

4.That a Limited Community Treatment order pursuant to s 289 of the Mental Health Act 2000 to commence immediately is approved on the following conditions:          

(a)That the patient comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication and other treatment;       

(b)That the patient must not use alcohol unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist;      

(c)That the patient abstain from all illicit drugs and must cooperate fully in random medical tests for those substances as required by the authorised psychiatrist;       

(d)That the patient not drive a motor vehicle unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist.      

More than overnight

(e)That the patient reside at an address or a place approved in advance in writing by the authorised psychiatrist;       

(f)That the patient must attend an appointment with a psychiatrist and all follow up appointments and in-patient care as required by the authorised psychiatrist.       

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with assault occasioning bodily harm, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, public nuisance, serious assault of police, possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a utensil, two counts of obstructing police and two counts of breach of a bail condition – where defendant diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with a differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in the Schedule of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences – whether the mental state of the defendant at the time of the alleged offences was due to his intoxication – whether a Forensic Order is required – whether Limited Community Treatment should be approved

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule, s 288, s 289

COUNSEL:

C L Morgan for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
S Vasta 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:

1. This is a reference by Legal Aid Queensland filed on 31 October 2011 and an amended reference by Legal Aid filed on 20 March 2012 and a reference by the Director of Mental Health filed on 22 June 2012.  The references relate to 10 offences, all of which are alleged to have occurred between 8 May 2011 and February 2012.  They include assault occasioning bodily harm on 8 May 2011, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed on 20 June 2011 and then offences in February 2012. I note that those 2012 offences occurred between 13 and 15 February, which is a two day period. 

1. A report by Dr Angela Voita was dated 3 June 2013 but was, in fact, based on interviews in February 2012 and was prepared in relation to the assault occasioning bodily harm charge on 8 May 2011 and the assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed charge on 20 June 2011.  In relation to the assault occasioning bodily harm, it is clear that on 8 May 2011 the evidence indicates that Mr Davis approached the complainant saying he owed him money and when the complainant ignored him, Mr Davis punched the complainant in the jaw.  The complainant was rendered unconscious and fell to the floor.  The evidence is that the complainant states he had not provoked the defendant and could not work out why he had been punched. 

1. The second charge involves assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed.  It is clear that Mr Davis assaulted his grandfather with a pitchfork.  When the police attended he was obviously agitated and aggressive and kept screaming out, “Don’t take me.  Don’t take me.”  He did not know where he was and was struggling with police.  In her report, Dr Voita stated that at the time of the alleged offences in both May and June 2011, Mr Davis was suffering from a mental disease and he was experiencing an acute relapse of schizophrenia of the paranoid type.  She stated that, due to the presence of a mood component, there was a differential diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder.  Dr Voita concluded that, around the time of the alleged offences, Mr Davis was experiencing a number of psychotic symptoms including persecutory and bizarre delusions, auditory hallucinations and passivity phenomena. 

1. On the basis of Dr Voita’s report, it is clear that Mr Davis had not been compliant with anti-psychotic medication since late 2009 and had been using alcohol and substances.  Dr Voita indicated that the evidence from the clinical material, as well as assessments at the time, indicated that at the time of both those alleged offences, Mr Davis was elevated in mood, had neurovegetative disturbance and was behaving in a bizarre fashion and describing delusional ideas and auditory hallucinations. 

1. Dr Voita noted the assessment in June 2011 that he was acutely psychotic and that he was seen in late May 2011 and was obviously unwell.  Dr Voita concluded that Mr Davis was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the acts on both 8 May and 20 June 2011.  It is clear that Dr Kolur agrees with that conclusion in relation to the June offences.  However, in relation to the May offences, he considered that Mr Davis was not of unsound mind essentially on the basis that he could find no delusional explanation for his actions. 

1. On the basis of the advice of the assisting psychiatrists and having considered the evidence Dr Voita has given here today, I prefer the views of Dr Voita.  In my view, it is clear that Mr Davis was acutely unwell in the entire period.  It is a very short period of time, that is, some five weeks in total between the two offences in 2011.  He was acutely unwell in June and, on the balance of probabilities, I accept that he was psychotic at the time of the May offences.  In relation to the other offences in February 2012, as I have indicated, it is clear that these offences occurred over a two day period.  Of significance is the fact that Dr Voita interviewed Mr Davis in February 2012. Dr Voita has recorded quite lengthy and elaborate delusional systems that were operating at the time of that report and I have to say that based on the elaboration of those symptoms, which are referred to in some detail in Dr Voita’s report, I am satisfied that at the time of the offences in February, Mr Davis was acutely psychotic. 

1. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that his mental state was contributed to, to any extent, by his intoxication.  On the material before me, and given Dr Voita’s assessment, it would appear he was so psychotic at the time that his mental state, on a balance of probabilities, was more likely to be as a consequence of his illness.  I note that that view is supported by both the assisting psychiatrists. 

FINDINGS AND ORDERS

1. On balance, therefore, I am satisfied that at the time of the commission of all of the offences, Mr Davis was of unsound mind.  It is clear that a Forensic Order is required and Limited Community Treatment should be approved to commence immediately, subject to the discretion of the authorised psychiatrist.

1. I consider that orders should be in the following terms:

1.          That the defendant was of unsound mind as described in the Schedule of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences.

2.          That the proceedings according to law against the defendant are discontinued and further proceedings must not be taken against the defendant for the acts constituting the offences.

3. That a Forensic Order be made pursuant to s 288 of the Mental Health Act 2000 detaining the defendant to the Townsville Network Authorised Mental Health Service.

4. That a Limited Community Treatment order pursuant to s 289 of the Mental Health Act 2000 to commence immediately is approved on the following conditions:

(a)       That the patient comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication and other treatment;

(b)       That the patient must not use alcohol unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist;

(c)       That the patient abstain from all illicit drugs and must cooperate fully in random medical tests for those substances as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

(d)      That the patient not drive a motor vehicle unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist.

More than overnight

(e)       That the patient reside at an address or a place approved in advance in writing by the authorised psychiatrist;

(f)       That the patient must attend an appointment with a psychiatrist and all follow up appointments and in-patient care as required by the authorised psychiatrist.