Re Goddard

[2005] QMHC 34

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Goddard [2005] MHC 034

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF ADAM JEFFREY GODDARD

PROCEEDING NO:

0023 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 October 2005

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr J M Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   With respect to the first charge of wilful damage, the defendant was of unsound mind as defined in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2 at the time of the alleged offences.

2.   With respect to the second charge of wilful damage, there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offence.

3.   The defendant is fit for trial.

4.   In respect of the second charge of wilful damage, the matter is to proceed according to law.

5.   The defendant is detained, pursuant to a forensic order, to the Prince Charles Hospital and District Authorised Mental Health Service.

6.   Limited community treatment is to commence immediately on the following conditions:

a)   That the defendant reside at (a stated address) or at an address approved in advance, in writing, by the authorised psychiatrist;

b)     That he attend an appointment with a psychiatrist and attend all follow-up appointments, and in-patient care, as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

c)   That he comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication, and other treatment;

d)     That he abstain from excessive use of alcohol, and that he abstain from the use of illicit drugs, and make himself available and co-operate fully in random medical tests for those substances, as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

e)   That he not drive a motor vehicle, unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with two charges of wilful damage – whether the defendant, at the time of the alleged offences, was deprived of the capacity to understand what he was doing, or the capacity of control, or the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act pursuant to the Criminal Code, s 27 – whether the defendant was of unsound mind – whether the defendant is fit for trial – whether any unfitness of a permanent nature – whether a forensic order is required

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

C Morgan for the defendant
W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health

C Kelly 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

1. HOLMES J:  Mr Goddard is charged with two charges of wilful damage on 18 January 2004.  In fact, there is only a single act alleged against him:  that he threw sulphuric acid over one car, some of which, it seems, splashed onto a second car.

1. In those circumstances, it seems to me that I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the second charge.  In relation to that, there is nothing to suggest other than that Mr Goddard is fit for trial, and the matter should proceed according to law.  Having said that, it is clear that the charge is simply not sustainable, and no doubt the Director of Public Prosecution's office will take the appropriate steps in respect of it.

1. Returning then to the issue of the first charge of wilful damage, I am satisfied on the material that Mr Goddard was of unsound mind at the time that offence was allegedly committed.  The question of whether a forensic order should be made has been raised.  It seems to me, on balance, that in the interests of Mr Goddard's own protection and that of the community, an order ought to be made.  I note that the offence did involve the use of acid which caused some harm to Mr Goddard himself, and also had considerable potential to seriously injure another person, even if only quite inadvertently.

1. The other matter which is of some concern is that after having been admitted to hospital following that incident and discharged, Mr Goddard was admitted again in April 2004, having made threats to his neighbour who seems to have been very disturbed by that, and not surprisingly.  As Dr Wood points out, the attendance by Mr Goddard for treatment on a voluntary basis has coincided with the reference to this Court, and I think it is reasonable to assume it is not unconnected.  That means that one cannot be entirely complacent about that continuing state of affairs.

1. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that the better course is to place Mr Goddard on a forensic order.  I order that he be detained to the Prince Charles Hospital and district authorised Mental Health Service. I order that he receive limited community treatment to commence immediately on the following conditions: 

a)   That the defendant reside at (a stated address) or at an address approved in advance, in writing, by the authorised psychiatrist;

b)   That he attend an appointment with a psychiatrist and attend all follow-up appointments, and in-patient care, as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

c)   That he comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication, and other treatment;

d)   That he abstain from excessive use of alcohol, and that he abstain from the use of illicit drugs, and make himself available and co-operate fully in random medical tests for those substances, as required by the authorised psychiatrist;

e)   That he not drive a motor vehicle, unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist.