Re Dibben

[2007] QMHC 23

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Dibben [2007] QMHC 023

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF ROBERT DIBBEN

PROCEEDING:

No 0090 of 2006

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J F Wood
Dr J M 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 alleged offence.

2.    The defendant is fit for trial.

3.    The proceedings against the defendant are to continue according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant is charged with one count of attempted arson – where defendant is diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia – where defendant has a long history of illicit drug use – where there is evidence that the defendant had used crystal methylamphetamine on the day of the alleged offence – whether intentional intoxication contributed to the defendant’s state of mind at the relevant time – whether the defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the relevant time – whether the defendant is fit for trial

COUNSEL:

J Farmer for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

D Holliday 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)

1. PHILIPPIDES J:  Robert Dibben is charged with one count of attempted arson on 17 December 2005.  The defendant is alleged to have attempted to unlawfully set fire to his neighbour's house on that date by throwing a Molotov cocktail against the property in question.  The defendant has made admissions in relation to making two Molotov cocktails and in relation to conduct entailing throwing a second Molotov cocktail towards the neighbour's fence.

1. The evidence before the Court indicates clearly that the defendant suffers from a psychiatric condition.  He suffers from paranoid schizophrenia which has been exacerbated by amphetamine abuse.  He experiences auditory and tactile hallucinations and a systemised persecutory system is also documented.

1. The two reporting psychiatrists, Dr MacKinnon and Dr Butler, are at one in relation to his diagnosis of schizophrenia, and in particular chronic paranoid schizophrenia.  The issue for this Court really concerns that of intoxication and whether the defendant's state of mind resulted to any extent from intentional intoxication, in particular whether it resulted from amphetamine use.

1. I note that the defendant has a long history of illicit drug use.  He commenced using cannabis at the age of 13 and from the age of 17 has been using various drugs, including amphetamines, ecstasy, fantasy and ice.  I also note that initially he was diagnosed to have a psychosis secondary to drug abuse, although ultimately the diagnosis settled upon was paranoid schizophrenia.

1. Dr MacKinnon, who had access to the defendant's records, itemises in her report a number of Involuntary Treatment Orders which were made in relation to the defendant from October 2004 to July 2005 and records that most of the admissions have been due to exacerbation of psychosis in the context of non-compliance and ongoing amphetamine abuse.

1. The defendant was seen on three occasions by Dr MacKinnon, who was in the early part of 2006 his treating psychiatrist and who provided two reports to this Court.  Initially he told Dr MacKinnon, that is when first seen on the 21st of February 2006, that he had been bored, that he was not feeling the best as he was "doing Speed."  He was guarded about discussing psychotic symptoms, however he admitted to non-compliance with medication which he saw as being "a hassle" and admitted to using Speed.  On the occasion of the second and third interviews on 20 and 27 March 2006, the defendant was more forthcoming about his longstanding persecutory and grandiose delusions and went into some detail about those. 

1. Dr MacKinnon also obtained a history from the defendant's mother which indicated that he was non-compliant with medication and that he had used amphetamines in the past.  She mentioned that he had used amphetamines two days before an occasion in July 2005, prior to the commencement of the last Involuntary Treatment Order, which had resulted in him presenting to police and claiming that someone had thrown radioactive material or poison at him.  Dr MacKinnon also recorded that the defendant's mother had referred to an incident which had taken place on the day before the alleged offence when she found a hangman's noose in the shed, and she referred to the fact that the defendant was fearful and she reported to Dr MacKinnon that she suspected the defendant was abusing amphetamines once or twice a week.

1. Dr MacKinnon concluded that it was probable that the defendant was intoxicated at the time in question, although she did also note that it was possible that the defendant had not in fact left the house in order to obtain drugs for a few days.  She opined that, notwithstanding intoxication, the defendant was deprived of the capacity at least to understand that what he was doing was wrong, and probably of both cognitive capacities.  She confirmed in her second report and in the oral evidence before the Court that she considered that intoxication from amphetamine use did not play any part in the deprivation of those two capacities.  She maintained that opinion, notwithstanding her conclusion that the defendant was probably intoxicated and notwithstanding what the defendant reported to Dr Butler concerning amphetamine use.

1. The defendant had reported to Dr Butler when interviewed by him that he had taken crystal methylamphetamine on the day in question and that it made his head feel "really big" and often made him "seem wild."  He told Dr Butler that he could not recall much about the day in question because, "I was a bit wasted."  Dr Butler was unable to obtain details of the quantity of crystal methylamphetamine that the defendant claimed to have taken on the day in question.  Dr Butler concluded that the defendant's admission in relation to having taken methylamphetamine on the day in question ought, on balance, to be accepted and that his intentional intoxication from amphetamine use did to some extent play a part in the deprivation of the relevant capacities. 

1. Likewise, I do not consider that the defendant's statement concerning his having taken and used amphetamine on the day in question ought to be discounted, and I proceed on the basis that on balance that evidence ought to be accepted.  His statement to Dr Butler is consistent with what he initially told Dr MacKinnon.  It is consistent with his expression of the way he felt as being wasted and it is also consistent with the history given by his mother of regular drug use and indeed with the defendant's clinical picture of exacerbation of psychosis in the context of ongoing amphetamine abuse.

1. I do not consider that the statement made by the defendant about amphetamine use ought to be disregarded because of the reference in Dr MacKinnon's report to the defendant feeling fearful at the time in question and having withdrawn into his house and her view that, "He possibly did not leave his house to obtain drugs for a few days."

1. Although I accept that the defendant's psychiatric condition, namely his paranoid schizophrenia, clearly played a central role on the day in question, there was also the presence of intoxication from amphetamine use.  I prefer the view taken by Dr Butler, as do the assisting psychiatrists, that intoxication did play a role in the deprivation of the cognitive capacities. 

1. In those circumstances I do not find that the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time.  The defendant is fit for trial and accordingly the proceedings will continue according to law.