Re GAH - [2005] QMHC 11

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION: Re GAH [2005] QMHC 011
PARTIES: REFERENCE BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
IN RESPECT OF GAH
PROCEEDING NO: 0025 of 2004
DELIVERED ON: 24 February 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATES: 17 November 2004, 17 February 2005
JUDGE: Wilson J
ASSISTING Dr J F Wood
PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr DA Grant

FINDINGS:

(1) That 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) That the defendant was of diminished
responsibility as described in schedule 2 of the Mental
Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged
offence;
(3) That the defendant is fit for trial.
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 his ex-girlfriend’s new partner – where defendant had been prescribed anti-depressants but had no other history of psychiatric illness – where after the alleged offence defendant complained of hearing voices before the incident – where ongoing self reports of hearing voices - where defendant now diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia – where expert psychiatric opinion differed on whether defendant was suffering from fully developed paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the alleged offence – where some expert psychiatric opinion that defendant was suffering from an adjustment disorder at the time of the alleged offence – whether defendant was of diminished responsibility as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s27, s304A
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2
Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 at 403, followed
Re CWB [2003] QMHC 012, cited
R v Ford [1972] QWN 5, cited
Re GMB (2002) 130 A Crim R 187 at 197 – 198, cited
Re H, Mental Health Tribunal, 19 January 2001, unreported,
Chesterman J, cited
R v Rolph [1962] Qd R 262 at 288, followed
R v Whitworth [1989] 1 Qd R 437 at 446, followed
COUNSEL: J Farmer for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
PJ Feeney and G Cash for the Director of Public
Prosecutions
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health
The Director of Public Prosecutions

WILSON J: The defendant has been charged with murder on 6 December 2002. The matter of his mental condition in relation to the offence was referred to this Court by his legal representative on 2 March 2004.
The evidence did not support a finding of unsoundness of mind. The real issue is whether he was of diminished responsibility at the time of the alleged offence.
The victim of the homicide was TW, a 58 year old man. He was a slim man about 6 feet tall. The defendant is alleged to have kicked and punched him to death.
From about mid 1999 to late October 2002 the defendant was in a de…

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 GAH

Details

AGLC: Re GAH [2005] QMHC 11
Case: [2005] QMHC 11
Decision Date: 24 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re GAH involved a defendant charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend's new partner. The defendant had a prescription for anti-depressants but no other history of psychiatric illness. After the alleged offence, the defendant reported hearing voices, and ongoing self-reports of auditory hallucinations were noted. The defendant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, but expert psychiatric opinions differed on whether he was suffering from fully developed paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the alleged offence. Some experts suggested an adjustment disorder instead. The central legal issue was whether the defendant was of diminished responsibility as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).

The court examined the evidence and expert opinions to determine if the defendant met the criteria for diminished responsibility. The experts' differing opinions on the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence created a complex issue. The court had to weigh the evidence and decide if there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder that substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the offence. Given the conflicting expert opinions, the court concluded that the matter required further investigation and that the proceedings against the defendant should continue according to law.

The court's reasoning was based on the need to ensure a fair trial and the importance of a thorough examination of the defendant's mental state. The differing expert opinions on the defendant's condition at the time of the offence meant that the court could not definitively conclude on the issue of diminished responsibility. Therefore, the court ordered that the proceedings against the defendant for manslaughter be continued according to law. This outcome ensures that the defendant receives a fair trial with due consideration of all relevant evidence and expert opinions.

Orders

Orders of the court

That proceedings against the defendant for

manslaughter be continued according to law.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Re GAH [2005] QMHC 011
PARTIES:	REFERENCE BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF GAH
PROCEEDING NO:	0025 of 2004
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	17 November 2004, 17 February 2005
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ASSISTING	Dr J F Wood
PSYCHIATRISTS:	Dr DA Grant
FINDINGS:	(1) That 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) That the defendant was of diminished
responsibility as described in schedule 2 of the Mental
*Health Act* 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offence;
(3) That the defendant is fit for trial.
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 his ex-girlfriend’s new partner – where defendant had been prescribed anti-depressants but had no other history of psychiatric illness – where after the alleged offence defendant complained of hearing voices before the incident – where ongoing self reports of hearing voices - where defendant now diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia – where expert psychiatric opinion differed on whether defendant was suffering from fully developed paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the alleged offence – where some expert psychiatric opinion that defendant was suffering from an adjustment disorder at the time of the alleged offence – whether defendant was of diminished responsibility as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s27, s304A Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2 Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 at 403, followed Re CWB [2003] QMHC 012, cited R v Ford [1972] QWN 5, cited Re GMB (2002) 130 A Crim R 187 at 197 – 198, cited Re H, Mental Health Tribunal, 19 January 2001, unreported, Chesterman J, cited R v Rolph [1962] Qd R 262 at 288, followed R v Whitworth [1989] 1 Qd R 437 at 446, followed
COUNSEL:	J Farmer for the defendant J Tate for the Director of Mental Health PJ Feeney and G Cash for the Director of Public Prosecutions
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health The Director of Public Prosecutions