Re Hopper
[2010] QMHC 50
•11 February 2010
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION:
Re Hopper [2010] QMHC 50
PARTIES:
REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN RESPECT OF DANIEL ERROL HOPPER
PROCEEDING:
No 255 of 2008
DELIVERED ON:
11 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 February 2010
JUDGE:
Philippides J
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:
Dr J M Lawrence
Dr E N McVieFINDINGS AND ORDER:
1. That in respect of the charge of enter dwelling and commit indictable offence, there is reasonable doubt the defendant committed the offence: the defendant is fit for trial.
2. That in respect of the charges of unlawful entry of a motor vehicle and stealing: the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time.
3. That the defendant is to be detained as a forensic patient at the West Moreton south Burnett Authorised Mental Health service;
4. That limited community treatment commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the following conditions:
(a) The defendant reside at a place approved in advance in writing by the authorised psychiatrist;
(b) The defendant attend an appointment with the treating psychiatrist on the date and place specified and all follow up appointments and in-patient care as required by the authorised psychiatrist;
(c) The defendant comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of the prescribed medication and other treatment;
(d) The defendant abstain from using alcohol and illicit drugs and co-operate fully in random medical tests for the detection of those substances as required by the authorised psychiatrist; and
(e) The defendant 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 is charged with enter dwelling and commit indictable offence, unlawful entry of a motor vehicle and stealing – where defendant suffers from a chronic schizophrenic illness – whether defendant was deprived of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offences – whether defendant is fit for trial
COUNSEL:
Ms K Prskalo for the Defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental HealthMr A Lossberg for the Director of Public Prosecutions
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental HealthThe Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)
PHILIPPIDES J: Daniel Errol Hopper is charged with enter dwelling and commit indictable offence, unlawful entry of a motor vehicle and stealing, all on 3 June 2008.
The defendant suffers from a chronic schizophrenic illness, as is apparent from the material before the Court.
In relation to the charge of enter dwelling and commit indictable offence, there is a dispute of fact which I am satisfied is not attributable to the defendant’s mental condition such that a reasonable doubt arises as to the commission of the offence. In those circumstances, the Court makes no finding as to the defendant’s state of mind at the relevant time. The material indicates that the defendant is fit for trial. Accordingly, that matter will continue according to law.
In relation to the other two charges, the evidence of Dr Venugopalan was that he did not consider that there was, as a result of the defendant’s mental illness, a deprivation at the relevant time.
Dr Lim, however, took different view and he concluded that there was a deprivation at least of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act.
I note that the material before the Court indicates that the defendant was floridly psychotic at the relevant time. The defendant was admitted to hospital on 4 June 2008.
He was noted to be thought disordered and to exhibit significant disorganised thinking. The admission records indicate that he was indeed floridly psychotic.
I prefer the view of Dr Lim over that of Dr Venugopalan who, I note, altered his opinion, in any event, from one of firmly opining that the defendant was only impaired to accepting that the defendant came “very close to deprived”.
I also note Dr Venugopalan’s acknowledgement that he was unable to access some of the information that Dr Lim was able to elicit in relation to the defendant’s beliefs at the relevant time, in particular the beliefs concerning the defendant being subject of a conspiracy and needing to make his plight public by obtaining the attention of the police.
In those circumstances I conclude that the defendant was of unsound mind in relation to the charges of unlawful entry of a motor vehicle and stealing.
I consider that this is a case where a forensic order is warranted bearing in mind the seriousness of the defendant’s condition in particular. The defendant has had a long-standing condition.
I also note that the defendant has been on an ITO and that there has been a history of non-compliance and of disengagement with Mental Health Services. Dr Scott, in his report of 3 February 2010 indicates that there is insight and cooperation by the defendant and opines that his management can proceed pursuant to an ITO but there would have to be significant apprehension about whether an ITO could be sustained if, indeed, the defendant continued to have the degree of insight and compliance which Dr Scott refers to.
In those circumstances ITO would be, indeed, a very fragile mechanism by which to ensure ongoing engagement with the Mental Health Services.
In those circumstances I consider that a forensic order is a preferable means of ensuring the protection of the community as well as the engagement of the defendant in treatment and I note that on the day in question that the defendant’s behaviour was, indeed, very concerning.
Accordingly, I order that the defendant be detained to the West Moreton south Burnett Authorised Mental Health Service.
I approve limited community treatment to commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the five incisions contained in the submission the Director of Mental Health.
I give leave to the parties to use the medical reports in further proceedings.
0
0
0