Re Godwin

[2007] QMHC 32

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Godwin [2007] QMHC 32

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF MICHAEL GODWIN

PROCEEDING:

No 0081 of 2006

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 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 charged with going armed in public to cause fear, serious assault, assault to obstruct police and possession of implements to be used in relation to particular offences – where the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and long-standing poly-substance abuse – where the defendant was deprived of all three of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offences – where there is evidence that the defendant was intentionally intoxicated at the relevant times – where expert witnesses agreed that intentional intoxication contributed to the deprivation of the defendant’s capacities 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 time of the alleged offences – whether the defendant is fit for trial

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

S Crofton 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:  Michael Godwin is charged with four counts concerning an incident which occurred on 15 March 2006.  They are:  going armed in public to cause fear; serious assault; assault to obstruct police; and possession of implements that were being used or were about to be used in relation to particular offences.

1. The clinical material before the Court indicates that the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and from long-standing poly-substance abuse.  In 2003 he was diagnosed with Adult ADHD and prescribed dexamphetamine sulphate.  He was prescribed 20mg per day, but he admits to over-using that medication on occasions and for certain purposes.

1. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia.  Nor is it in dispute that the defendant was deprived of the three relevant capacities.  The issue that arises is whether intoxication contributed to any extent to the defendant's state of mind and to the deprivation of capacities.

1. The charges relate to an occasion when the defendant was absent without leave from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.  He had been admitted on 6 March 2006 to the hospital in respect of a psychotic episode and he failed to return from ground leave on 10 March 2006.  He left the hospital because of feelings of paranoia.  He believed that he was being persecuted; he believed that he was being watched and followed in the hospital and so decided to run away from his persecutors.  He described to Dr Hirst a complex system of delusions which included delusions about his brother and others who he believed were out to get him.  He admitted to Dr Hirst that he had taken many dexamphetamine tablets prior to the alleged offences.  He stated that he had taken up to 40 tablets per day of dexamphetamine sulphate 5mg.  The reason why he did this was to stay awake because he feared that if he fell asleep his persecutors would find him and kill him.  He described being in such a state that he was at the end of his tether and he decided to create an incident so that the police would be forced to shoot him.  He also believed that if he died his children would be safe.

1. Dr Hirst indicated that the history of taking up to 40 tablets per day prior to the incident in question was not entirely reliable.  It appears, however, that the defendant did take dexamphetamine and I have no basis to doubt that a substantial quantity had been consumed, even if it was not precisely the amount which he reported.  He also told Dr Hirst that he had not slept for some four days before the incident in question.

1. Dr Hirst, in her second report, stated the opinion that both the schizophrenia and poly-substance abuse contributed to the defendant being deprived of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offences.  She also stated:

"It was not the mental illness alone that made him act as he did, but it was the mental illness that caused him to use the illicit substance in excess at that time.  I believe that without the intoxication he would still have been psychotic and deprived of the three capacities, but the degree of his paranoia and distress would probably have been less and may not have reached the level that they did to make him act on his suicidal thoughts and carry out the alleged offences."

1. In her oral evidence, Dr Hirst clarified the views which she had expressed in her report.  I note that she accepted that intoxication undoubtedly had an effect on the defendant's state of mind.  Dr Hirst accepted that it would have intensified the level of paranoia being experienced by the defendant.  It is significant that Dr Hirst ultimately conceded that it was a combination of intoxication and mental illness that caused the defendant to act as he did.  That view coincides with the opinion expressed by Dr Chalk in his report to the Court.  He stated:

"In my view, this man has a primary schizophrenic illness complicated and indeed exacerbated by poly-substance abuse, and I am of the view that at the time of committing these offences, it was more likely than not that whilst intoxication undoubtedly contributed to the deprivation of his capacity, it was not the primary cause of their loss."

1. Dr Chalk expanded in his oral evidence on his report and made it clear that in his view intoxication was a significant contributing factor in the deprivation of capacities. 

1. I note that Dr Hirst stated her view that the defendant had resorted to amphetamine abuse because of his delusional beliefs, however, I also observe that Dr Chalk was unable to obtain a clear history of any command hallucinations with respect to the ingestion of amphetamine.  The fact remains that the evidence before the Court, which I accept, is that the defendant was at the relevant time intentionally intoxicated.

1. The conclusion that I reach, taking into account the clinical evidence and the opinions of the assisting psychiatrists, is that intoxication did contribute to the defendant's state of mind at the relevant time resulting in deprivation of the relevant capacities.

1. In those circumstances, I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time; the defendant is fit for trial and accordingly, the proceedings will continue according to law.  I grant leave to the parties to use the medical reports before the Court in any further proceedings.