Re Hayes

[2005] QMHC 49

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Hayes [2005] QMHC 49

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF JOSHUA RONALD HAYES

PROCEEDING NO:

0004 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

12 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 October 2005

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr J Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   The matter is adjourned.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with attempted murder – whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences – whether there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offence pursuant to s 268, Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) – whether the defendant is fit for trial

Criminal Code (Qld), s 27

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 268, s 273, schedule 2

COUNSEL:

C Morgan 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
The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health

The Director of Public Prosecutions

[1]      HOLMES J: Mr Hayes is charged with attempted murder on 12 November 2004. It is accepted by his legal representative that there is, inevitably, on the accounts he has given, a reasonable doubt as to his commission of that offence. That means, pursuant to s 268 of the Mental Health Act 2000, that this Court may not make any decision as to whether he was or was not of sound mind at the time that offence was committed. There were, of course, before the Court a number of psychiatric reports from Drs Rofe, Venugopalan, Thompson and Stevens which might have born on any such decision but, in the circumstances, no finding, for the reason I have given, could be made.

[2]      The contemporary evidence is to the effect that he is fit for trial.  The question is as to what becomes of him now.  Once those findings are made, as it seems to me, he then resumes his normal status as a remand prisoner; and I am informed that he has not at any stage applied for bail.

[3]      Dr Stephens has given a view that he could be managed in the jail context under a continuing involuntary treatment order.  That is not to say it is particularly desirable, but it is, I think the gist of what Dr Stephens says, possible.  Certainly Dr Stephens emphasises the need for continuation of the involuntary treatment order to ensure that Mr Hayes continues to receive psychiatric treatment.

[4] Section 273 of the Mental Health Act 2000 does enable the Court to order that Mr Hayes be granted bail or be detained in an authorised mental health service until he is granted bail or brought before a court for continuing the proceedings. The difficulty with making an order requiring his detention in an authorised mental health services is that it will only last until he is next before a court, which is not long away. On the other hand, I simply do not have the material before me at the moment which would enable me to consider a bail application under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld). For those reasons, I do not propose to embark on the exercise but I make these remarks so that the position is, I hope, made somewhat clearer.

[5]      I will just add this to my remarks:  I should emphasise that although the conclusion seems clear that in the existence of a reasonable doubt no finding could be made, I do not propose to make that formal finding for the present and in that state of affairs Mr Hayes will continue as a patient in the authorised mental health service on the status that he has had to date as a classified patient.  Once, of course, the findings are formally made that situation will come to an end, but it may be that in the interim his bail application can be considered and resolved.

[6]      I will order that the reports of Drs Rofe, Venugopalan, Thompson and Stephens be made available to the representatives for Mr Hayes for use in any bail application and that the matter be adjourned.

[7]      Formal findings were subsequently made on 21 October 2005, after a bail application was heard, of a reasonable doubt, with respect to Mr Hayes’ charge, such as to preclude any finding in respect of unsoundness. Mr Hayes was found fit for trial with the charge to continue according to law.