Re Flood-Warren

[2005] QMHC 48

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Flood-Warren [2005] QMHC 48

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF DONALD WARREN AKA FLOOD-WARREN

PROCEEDING NO:

No 0173 of 2004

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 August 2005

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr D A Grant

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

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

2.   The defendant is fit for trial.

3.    The proceedings for the alleged offence are to continue according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with entering a dwelling at night, with intent and with circumstances of aggravation – whether defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence – whether defendant fit for trial

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 27

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2

COUNSEL:

M Thompson for the defendant
W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health

C Kelly for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Myles Thompson Lawyers for the defendant
The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health

The Director of Public Prosecutions

1. :HOLMES J  Mr Flood-Warren is charged with entering a dwelling house at night, with intent, with circumstances of aggravation on 25 May 2004.  Differing opinions have been given on the question of unsoundness, although Mr Flood-Warren's solicitor did not push for a finding to the effect that his client was of unsound mind. 

1. Dr Diedricks, who gave a report on 25 August 2004, gave a general opinion to the effect that Mr Warren's behaviour on the day in question was greatly influenced by an abnormality of his mental state and expressed a belief he was of unsound mind regarding the alleged offence. Unfortunately, he did not give any attention to the definition in s 27 of the Criminal Code of unsoundness, and it is simply unknown on what basis he may have thought that; whether it was a consideration of the legal implications of the expression or not. He does not descend, for example, to identifying of what capacity Mr Flood-Warren might have been deprived.

1. Dr Fama, on the other hand, has also examined Mr Flood-Warren and given a report of 4 April 2005.  He did not think that Mr Flood-Warren's actions related to a primarily paranoid state.  There might, he thought, have been some oversensitivity and suspicion at the time of the alleged offence, but it was not a product of mental disease.  He did not think that there was sufficient to conclude that Mr Flood-Warren was deprived of any capacity.  At most, he thought the history was consistent with a degree of impairment rather than deprivation.

1. Neither psychiatrist was called for cross-examination, and I have nothing but their reports on which to come to a conclusion.  I prefer the report of Dr Fama because it gives actual consideration to what is entailed in a finding of unsoundness under the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2. I conclude, therefore, on the basis of Dr Fama’s opinion that Mr Flood-Warren was not of unsound mind at the time the alleged offence was committed.

1. That leaves the question of fitness for trial, which was argued by Mr Thompson.  Dr Diedricks, in his report of 25 August 2004, while identifying various psychotic features displayed during an admission to hospital in May 2004 of Mr Flood-Warren, did not consider him presently unfit for trial.  That is at the date of his report in August 2004.  He said that since treatment, Mr Flood-Warren's mental state had improved to an extent that he could understand and participate in Court proceedings, although he observed that he would require support in terms of his profound deafness.

1. Dr Fama also reported on the question of fitness for trial, and he undertook his usual procedure of going through the processes with Mr Flood-Warren and identifying his understanding in respect of each relevant aspect.  He concluded that Mr Flood-Warren was fit for trial. 

1. Dr Beamer, Mr Flood-Warren's treating psychiatrist, has given a number of reports.  One of those is an undated report.  In it Dr Beamer refers to Mr Flood-Warren having long-standing issues with temper, and probably also some chronic post-traumatic stress disorder from war time experiences.  That does not of itself seem to bear on any question of fitness.  Dr Beamer does refer to Mr Flood-Warren having had a history of obsessive compulsive personality disorder as well as confused thought processes and some paranoid features at the time of the alleged offending, but that, of course, is at that particular time, without treatment.

1. In a report – said to be dated 31 June 2000 but presumably from 30 June or 1 July – Dr Beamer reports on a mental state examination of that day.  He found Mr Flood-Warren alert and oriented.  His thought processes appeared organised.  Dr Beamer found no looseness, ideas of reference or paranoia expressed.  He said that Mr Flood-Warren had some signs of obsessiveness and a rigid style of coping, which is not, of course, unknown in the legal profession.

1. In a more recent report of 15 July 2005, Dr Beamer did express some concerns as to Mr Flood-Warren's level of organisation in daily living.  But he also notes on a mental status examination that Mr Flood-Warren's speech was clear and goal- directed and easily understandable.  His thoughts were organised.  There was no delusional material.  There was no sign of response to internal stimuli or hallucination.  There was some problem with insight, but in memory testing, Mr Warren performed well and had no difficulty with conceptual testing.  Dr Beamer says his impression is that Mr Flood-Warren was in much the same state as when he first evaluated him.  Although there were some reports of increased confusion and loss of memory from his family, in his testing, he did not elicit any difference in memory compared to his first interview.

1. The conclusion I come to on the medical evidence is that Mr Flood-Warren is fit for trial.  I note the observations of Dr Grant and Dr Wood.  Given what appears to be early dementia,  that situation could change if the trial did not occur with relative promptness.  But there is no basis for any other finding than fitness for trial at the present time.  That is the finding I make.  The matter should proceed according to law.