Re JJB
[2004] QMHC 28
•28 September 2004
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION: | Re JJB [2004] QMHC 028 |
PARTIES: | REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN RESPECT OF JJB |
PROCEEDING NO: | 0224 of 2003 |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 September 2004 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 17 September 2004 |
JUDGE: ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: | Wilson J Dr J F Wood |
FINDINGS: | 1) That the defendant is fit for trial; 2) That the proceedings against the defendant be continued according to law. |
CATCHWORDS: | MENTAL HEALTH – FINDING OR DECLARATION OF MENTAL ILLNESS – where the defendant has been charged with two counts of fraud in excess of $5000 – where defendant may have suffered disorder in spectrum of schizophrenia – where defendant somewhat eccentric and of poor judgment – whether defendant formed relevant intent – whether defendant acted under mistake of fact – factual disputes as to guilt – reasonable doubt defendant committed offences – not only in consequence of mental condition Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 24 RWC [2002] QMHC 013 followed. |
COUNSEL: | J Prus for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant |
WILSON J: The defendant has been charged with two counts of fraud in excess of $5000 between 27 May and 1 June 2000. Her mental condition in relation to the offences was referred to this Court by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The defendant's counsel did not press for a finding of unsoundness of mind. He informed the Court that the questions whether she formed the relevant intent and whether she acted under a mistake of fact (see section 24 of the Criminal Code) were live. Further, in his submission, the "spectrum condition" from which the defendant suffered made a significant contribution to her ability to form the intent and/or put her in the position where she could much more readily and easily than others have made a mistake of fact.
This case calls for consideration of subsections (1) and (2) of section 268 of the Mental Health Act 2000 which provide:
"268 Reasonable doubt person committed offence
(1)The Mental Health Court must not make a decision under section 267(1)(a) or (b) if the court is satisfied there is reasonable doubt the person committed the alleged offence (the "disputed offence").
(2)However, the court may make a decision under section 267(1)(a) or (b) if the doubt the person committed the disputed offence exists only as a consequence of the person's mental condition."
The defendant ran a business for the purposes of which she was issued with an EFTPOS machine by Suncorp Metway. The machine could be used to recredit the account of a customer who returned goods. The defendant is alleged to have used the system to recredit her account and that of another, Thompson, when in fact no goods were returned. She is alleged to have fraudulently transferred approximately $650,000 in this manner.
On 28 May 2000, there were 54 transactions of $5000 each. Of these, 42 transactions ($210,000) involved transfers to Thompson, and the balance (12 transactions $60,000) to the defendant herself. The transfers were made at one to three minute intervals beginning at 1603 hours. Then on 29 and 30 May 2000, she made the following transfers: 31 transfers of $5000 to herself between 0003 and 0058 hours; 29 transfers of $5000 to Thompson between 2328 and 2359 hours; and 15 transfers of $5000 to Thompson on 30 May between midnight and 0014 hours.
On the evidence, the defendant may have suffered a disorder in the spectrum of schizophrenia, which might be described as either a schizotypal disorder or a schizophrenic one. It seems clear that she was somewhat eccentric and had poor judgment. It was not established that she was responding to any delusional idea, hallucinatory voice or command, or was being driven beyond her control by any psychotic force or delusionally derived agenda.
Dr Mungomery, a psychiatrist, referred to her "delusional belief structure which she had not divulged to anybody directly but there were hints of it in collateral material." He said that her impaired judgment produced an impairment or deprivation of the capacities to understand what she was doing and to know that she ought not do the acts. Dr Reddan, another psychiatrist, considered that there was no deprivation of capacity.
In RWC [2002] QMHC 013, I held that section 268 deals with a factual dispute as to guilt other than in connection with soundness of mind or diminished responsibility. Section 269 deals with a factual dispute the resolution of which is material to the opinion of an expert; it may be connected with the offence or may be something in the person's psychiatric history.
This case is within section 268. Whether the defendant formed the relevant intent or whether she was acting under a mistake of fact are questions of fact not for determination in this Court. The jury may take into account the spectrum disorder in deciding whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did form the intent and whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she was not acting under a mistake of fact, but it cannot be said that the dispute of fact exists only in consequence of her mental condition, which I take to refer to the effects of a mental disorder as opposed to her underlying personality structure.
In these circumstances, this Court must not make a decision on the question of unsoundness of mind.
The defendant is fit for trial.
0
0
2