Re Heuer - [2011] QMHC 30

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Heuer [2011] QMHC 30

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES FOR ERIC ROGER HEUER

PROCEEDING NO:

0190/09

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 March, 23 March, 5 May 2011

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr E N McVie
Dr FT Varghese

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

That at the time of the alleged offences the subject of the reference, the defendant was not of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).

That the defendant is fit for trial.

3. That the proceedings are to continue according to law

CATCHWORDS

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant was charged with attempted murder – whether the defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offence – if the defendant was of unsound mind, whether this condition was due to voluntary intoxication

COUNSEL:

J Briggs for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

B Campbell 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)

ANN LYONS J:

Mr Eric Roger Heuer is charged with two counts of attempted murder on 18 November 2008 at Hervey Bay. It is alleged that in the early hours of the morning of 18 November 2008, Mr Heuer stabbed his two flat mates.

This is a reference by the legal representatives for Mr Heuer.

The factual background to the alleged offences

Mr Heuer’s account.

In his record of interview with police Mr Heuer stated that on the evening before the alleged offences he had been out with his flat mates at a poker event at the local golf club and had consumed two cans of rum. He stated he had not had any drugs since he arrived back in Australia six months earlier but that he had used drugs including cocaine in the past. After they finished playing cards, he told police they all arrived home after midnight then had a meal together and watched TV. He told police that he had a bit of a sleep in front of the TV and just “felt down” and that “you feel down, when the world’s against you.” He referred to some text messages from his ex girlfriend banning him from seeing his daughter and to the fact he had had a “bit of an argument with my mum and dad.” He said he looked at the text messages after the sun was up and that he then tried to kill himself by grabbing a noose and going to the garage. When the noose broke he tried again but then went to the beach. He gave no details about the stabbing of his flatmates.

The victims’ accounts

One of the victims, Robin Drury, stated that he went to sleep about 2.30am…

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 Heuer

Details

AGLC: Re Heuer [2011] QMHC 30
Case: [2011] QMHC 30
Decision Date: 24 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the state and the defendant, who was charged with attempted murder. The dispute centred on the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offence and whether they were of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld). The court was required to determine whether the defendant's unsound mind was due to voluntary intoxication. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the offence, and if so, whether this condition was due to voluntary intoxication. The court had to consider the definition of unsound mind as outlined in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) and the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state and intoxication level at the time of the offence.

The court found that the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the offence, but this condition was not due to voluntary intoxication. The court based its decision on the evidence presented, including expert testimony and the defendant's own statements. The court concluded that the defendant's unsound mind was due to a pre-existing mental illness rather than voluntary intoxication. The court also noted that the defendant's intoxication may have exacerbated their mental state but was not the primary cause of their unsound mind.

The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a mental health facility until they were no longer of unsound mind. The court also ordered that the charges of attempted murder be stayed pending the outcome of the defendant's mental health treatment. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the defendant's mental state and any pre-existing mental illnesses when determining their criminal liability.

Orders