Re Goddard

[2010] QMHC 31

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Goddard [2010] QMHC 031

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF ADAM JEFFREY GODDARD

PROCEEDING NO:

No 0060/10

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2010

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr JM Lawrence
Dr EN McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. That at the time of the alleged offence the subject of the reference the defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld);

2.   That the defendant be detained as a forensic patient to the Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service;

3.   Approval of limited community treatment on the conditions stated in the amended submission from the Director of Mental Health.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged one count of attempted murder of his neighbour– where defendant previously offended against a neighbour in 2004 – where evidence the defendant suffers a severe schizophrenic illness – whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).

COUNSEL:

J Briggs 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)

NN LYONS J:A

The circumstances of the offence

1. This is a reference by the Director of Mental Health in relation to Adam Jeffrey Goddard. He is charged with the attempted murder of his neighbour on 10 October 2009. This is the second time that Mr Goddard has offended against a neighbour.  The first offence was in 2004 when he threw acid on a neighbour’s car.

1. On 10 October 2009 Mr Goddard was outside his house with a fishing rod he saw the neighbour and the neighbour’s wife in an adjoining carport.   He then left and went to his residence and came back with a butcher’s knife. He then went back again and returned with a smaller steak knife. He then yelled out abuse to the complainant’s wife in relation to a “fairy rod” and approached them. The complainant pushed his wife aside and told her to ring 000. The complainant then grabbed Mr Goddard’s right hand and struggled with him. Mr Goddard grabbed the knife with his left hand and began slashing at the complainant. Mr Goddard struck the complainant in the chest and the knife penetrated about two inches. Throughout the incident the complainant was yelling to Mr Goddard:  “No Adam, no, go home”.  Mr Goddard removed the knife from the complainant’s chest, dropped the knife on the ground and then went back to his residence.

Dr Voita’s Evidence

1. Dr Angela Voita has been Mr Goddard’s treating psychiatrist for the past year and she initially prepared a report on 5 March 2010. She also notes that the psychiatrist, Dr Jane Phillips, examined Mr Goddard two days after the alleged offences and she observed that he was responding to hallucinatory phenomena and he had a perplexed effect. She considered he had a marked formal thought disorder and was laughing inappropriately and describing delusional beliefs about his soul mate and the need to protect her. He knew he had a soul mate as he heard her voice. He believed his soul had been put inside the fishing rod. He considered that the complainant’s wife had tricked him. He said he heard the voice and then he received a secret message to go out and go fishing; and then he concluded that the complainant was having sex with his girlfriend. On 9 November he was reported as having delusional beliefs in relation to a radio presenter.

1. He was admitted to High Secure on 12 November 2009 and he believed others could read his thoughts and that he was getting messages from the television. Dr Voita noted that he remained preoccupied with the offence.

1. On 24 February 2010 Dr Voita stated that Mr Goddard still gave a thought disordered account of the offence.  In her report Dr Voita noted a past history which included a diagnosis of schizophrenia since 1996 and that he had had ECT in the past because he had not responded to medication. Dr Voita noted that he was managed as a voluntary patient at the Prince Charles Hospital from 2005 and was last seen on 8 October 2009 by the psychiatric registrar. He had speech latency and was preoccupied. Dr Voita also noted the inaccuracies in relation to drug use but considers that the use was probably insignificant.

1. Dr Voita diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and considered that Mr Goddard was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the act. Dr Voita considered that there is no clear evidence of intoxication at the time and in any event Mr Goddard remained psychotic for many months. She considered that any dispute of fact would be secondary to his mental illness. Dr Voita considered that a forensic order was required. In her update report to the court dated 1 November 2010 Dr Voita stated: 

“It is my opinion that at the time of the alleged offences Mr Goddard was suffering from a mental disease or natural mental infirmity as described in s 27 of the Criminal Code. He was suffering from a psychotic illness, most likely schizophrenia – paranoid type. A differential diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder should also be considered, given his history of mood symptoms. Notable he experienced depressive symptoms following his arrest and exhibited mood elevation in February/March 2010.

Mr Goddard also meets the criteria for polysubstance abuse (cannabis and amphetamines) currently in forced remission in a controlled environment.

Capacities

It is my opinion that at the time of the alleged offences Mr Goddard was suffering from a mental disease and was completely deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the act by virtue of a mental illness as defined in section 27 of the Queensland Criminal Code. He was in my opinion, not deprived of the capacity to know the nature of the act or the capacity to control his actions.”

1. In her recent report Dr Voita outlined the changes to Mr Goddard’s medication over time and stated that Mr Goddard was now being treated with Clozapine and although he had experienced some side effects they have now settled. She stated that Mr Goddard is willing to continue treatment with Clozapine and believes that the medication has been of benefit. Dr Voita stated that on last review he was able to give a good account of his current treatment. She considered that he exhibited mild formal thought disorder when again discussing his past psychotic symptoms and his motivation in relation to the index offence. She considered he was otherwise coherent in thought. Dr Voita stated that although Mr Goddard’s insight into his illness is not complete, he has expressed a willingness to work with the treating team to improve his insight into his illness. He has been attending rehabilitation programs over the past six months and there have been no adverse incidents. She stated that he was currently waiting to commence group psycho education programs.

1. Dr Voita noted that whilst Mr Goddard initially was going to sell his unit as the victim lived in the same block, the victim has moved and accordingly he has a desire to return to his accommodation. He is aware of the need not to contact the victim. Dr Voita considered that a forensic order was required and she considered that his treatment needs could be adequately met in the less restrictive environment of the Prince Charles Medium Secure Unit. She stated that Mr Goddard has been an inpatient at the High Secure Unit for almost a year and his mental state has markedly improved and there have been no incidences of aggression or self harm since his hospitalisation.  Dr Voita also considered that Mr Goddard has links to the Prince Charles Hospital district and he has accommodation in the area as well as support from his mother. Dr Voita confirmed in her oral evidence to the Court that Mr Goddard had never in fact been a patient of the medium secure unit at the Prince Charles Hospital.

1. Dr Voita considered that if Mr Goddard was placed on a forensic order then he should have limited community treatment and he should have access to escorted leave on and off the grounds and closed bus trips. She considered that the closed bus trips and escorted ground leave could commence immediately, and if that was successful that escorted leave off the grounds of the authorised mental health service could commence for the purpose of rehabilitation after three months. Dr Voita stated that Mr Goddard had had no limited community treatment to date and that she agreed with the draft conditions contained in the submission of the Director of Mental Health as amended.

Dr Reddan’s Evidence

1. In a report dated 20 August 2010, Dr Jill Reddan states that there is no dispute of facts but notes that Mr Goddard indicates he had no intention to kill. Dr Reddan considers that at the time of the alleged offences, Mr Goddard was psychotic, that is, out of contact with reality. Dr Reddan noted that Mr Goddard has a history of recurrent psychotic episodes with variable degrees of resolution with treatment. She stated that at various times his psychotic illness had been exacerbated by his serious drug use, specifically amphetamine use; or his amphetamine use has precipitated psychotic episodes, in a person who already suffers schizophrenia of a mixed sub-type.

1. In any event, Dr Reddan considers it is more likely than not that his use of drugs has significantly and negatively altered the natural history of his schizophrenia. Dr Reddan noted that no blood or urine was collected from Mr Goddard at the time of the offence and therefore the issue of intoxication cannot easily be resolved in Mr Goddard’s case. It would also seem that Mr Goddard has given a variable history of his use of amphetamines around the time of the alleged offence, and no objective testing was undertaken.

1. In any event, Dr Reddan considers that Mr Goddard was suffering from a psychotic illness at the time of the offence which arose from the mental disorder, schizophrenia, which at the time of the alleged offence she considers was sufficient to have deprived him of the capacity to control his actions and of the capacity to know that he ought no do the act with which he was charged. Although the issue of intoxication has not been fully resolved, Dr Reddan recommended to the court that Mr Goddard has a defence of unsoundness of mind pursuant to s 27 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

1. Dr Reddan recommends a forensic order, and she considers that he could be transferred to the Prince Charles Hospital as she does not consider he requires the high security program at the Park. She also stated that further consideration needs to be given to Mr Goddard’s ownership of the property and his affairs generally and there may be some advantage to his being at the Prince Charles Hospital where he is already known.

1. Dr Reddan noted that Mr Goddard is genuinely remorseful for his conduct and that this has significant implications for his future management. She stated that he does not harbour any animosity towards the victim or any ongoing psychotic or unusual beliefs. Dr Reddan considered that a non-contact order would be onerous.

1. Dr Pam van de Hoef also prepared a report to the Court dated 20 July 2010. Dr van de Hoef notes that Mr Goddard was assessed in the watch house two days after the alleged offence and found to be thoroughly psychotic with thought disorder, echolalia, echopraxia, as well as auditory and visual hallucinations. He was also assessed in the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, as well as malodorous, dishevelled, thought disordered, perplexed, deluded and he was experiencing hallucinations. He was transferred to the Park on 12 November 2009.

Dr van de Hoef’s evidence

1. Dr van de Hoef also considers that there is no dispute of facts and that he gave a similar account of thoughts at the time of the offence. However, Dr van de Hoef notes the conflicting stories in relation to drug use. In particular, he told prison staff on 13 October 2009 that he had used intravenous methamphetamine a month earlier.  He had told Dr Scott on 15 October 2009 that he used drugs three days earlier; and he told Legal Aid in a letter of 13 November that he had used two weeks prior to the offence and had had hallucinations for the next two weeks.

1. Dr van de Hoef reviewed Mr Goddard’s past psychiatric treatment and noted that the depot flupenthixol was decreased in July 2009 and his Olanzapine was decreased in September 2009. He also told Dr Voita that he had completely ceased Olanzapne prior to the offence. Dr van de Hoef noted a past history of suicide attempts and his first psychiatric contact was at the age of 14 following the death of a cousin in a fire.

1. Dr van de Hoef considers that Mr Goddard has severe chronic schizophrenia and that there was a deterioration in his mood and thinking within weeks of a decrease in medication in mid 2009. When Dr van de Hoef examined him in May 2010 she considered he was still psychotic. She considered therefore that Mr Goddard was deprived of capacity to know he ought not do the act and possibly deprived of the capacity to control his actions given he was clearly psychotic at the time and experiencing a relapse of schizophrenia.

1. Dr van de Hoef also considered that Mr Goddard requires a forensic order.

The Views of the Assisting Psychiatrists

1. Dr Lawrence and Dr McVie both considered that the evidence of the three reporting psychiatrists was uniform and it is clear that Mr Goddard suffers from a severe schizophrenic illness which has been present for at least 6 years and probably longer.  They both agreed that there was no evidence in relation to intoxication.

1. Dr Lawrence considered that his mental state was so disturbed at the time of the commission of the alleged offence as to deprive him of the capacity to know he ought not do the act.  Both psychiatrists were also very concerned that this was Mr Goddard’s second serious violent offence in the context of his illness and it was clear that he had been receiving treatment at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

1. Dr Lawrence’s view was that there was a clear need for a Forensic Order and that Mr Godard should be detained at The Park as the staff were well aware of the risks involved with Mr Goddard particularly with respect to drugs.

1. Dr McVie agreed that the evidence indicated a ‘chronic, severe, partially treatment resistant schizophrenia’ but was very concerned about Mr Goddard’s current management.  She considered that he needed to be more actively involved in his treatment rather than simply agreeing to treatment on an intellectual level.  Her concerns related to his lack of participation in programs particularly programs with respect to substance abuse.  Dr McVie stated that Mr Goddard should have regular urine drug screens and he should actively participate in some rehabilitation before he accesses limited community treatment. 

1. Dr Mc Vie also considered that Mr Goddard needs to be managed long term by a specialist forensic services and she had concerns about a transfer to the Prince Charles Hospital.

Conclusion

1. I am therefore satisfied that at the time of the commission of the alleged offence on 10 October 2009 Mr Goddard was of unsound mind as defined in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act.

1. I consider that any dispute of fact in relation to his intention at the time of the offence arises as a result of his mental condition.

1. I do not consider there is any objective evidence of intoxication at the time of the commission of the alleged offence particularly given he was examined by a psychiatric registrar on 8 October 2009 just two days before the date of the stabbing.

1. A Forensic Order is clearly required and should be in the terms of the amended Draft conditions contained in the submission of the Director of Mental Health dated 1 November 2010.