Re Kapusta

[2006] QMHC 14

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Kapusta [2006] QMHC 014

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF EDWARD ANDREW KAPUSTA

PROCEEDING 

No 0128 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2006

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J F Wood
Dr D A Grant

FINDINGS: 

ORDER:

1.  That there is no dispute of facts which can be attributed to any other cause than the defendant's mental condition 

2.  That when the alleged offences were committed the
     defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind as    
described in schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 2000
     (Qld).

1.   That the defendant be detained as a forensic patient in
     The Park High Security Program Approved Mental  
     Health Service.

2.  Approval of escorted limited community treatment
only, at the discretion of the authorised psychiatrist, consisting of closed bus trips off the grounds of The Park Centre for Mental Health and escorted limited community treatment on the grounds of The Park, on the following conditions:

      (a) That the patient is to remain under the escort of
            health service staff member/s nominated by the
             authorised psychiatrist for the duration of the
             limited community treatment; and
      (b) For the purposes of escorted limited community
             treatment, the patient complies with the
             directions of the nominated staff member/s for
             the duration of the limited community treatment.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with murder – where psychiatric opinion indicated that defendant suffered from mental illness – where at the time of the offence defendant was floridly psychotic and delusional - where mental illness deprived defendant of the capacity to know what he did was wrong – whether forensic order should be made

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

Mr J Farmer for the Defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

Mr T Fuller 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. PHILIPPIDES J:  Mr Kapusta is charged with the murder of Dennis Ringsell on 24 October 2004.

1. The matter of the defendant's mental condition at the time of the offence charged, was referred to this Court by the Director of Mental Health.  The evidence indicates that the defendant, the deceased and another man, X, all resided in a unit block at the Gold Coast. 

1. The evidence before the Court is that the deceased was present in the defendant's unit at about 11.20 on the day in question when an altercation ensued.  The two men ended up on the veranda of the defendant's unit, the defendant engaged in a frenzied stabbing of the deceased with a knife.  The deceased collapsed as a result of being so attacked and died due to the injuries inflicted. 

1. The defendant admits to having stabbed the deceased.  Today, through his legal representatives, it was indicated that the defendant also accepts that excessive force had been used in attacking the deceased, notwithstanding an earlier assertion that he was acting in self-defence.

1. Mr Fuller submitted that an issue remained concerning whether there was reasonable doubt in relation to the commission of the offence as to the question of intent involved in the defendant's conduct.  In particular, it was said that given the assertion made by the defendant that he was acting in self-defence and notwithstanding the concession made in relation to the excessive use of force, a reasonable doubt still remained in relation to the commission of the offence.

1. The psychiatric reports provided and the evidence given orally today are all to the same effect.  That is, that at the time of the offence, the defendant was suffering from a mental illness.  There are slight variations in the actual diagnosis made by the various psychiatrists, eg as to whether it was paranoid schizophrenia or delusional disorder, but all agree that the mental illness from which the defendant suffered, deprived him, at least, of the capacity to know what he did was wrong.

1. Dr Fama diagnosed delusional disorder, with the defendant holding a complex set of delusions, including that the deceased and X, were involved in paedophilia and crimes against children.  At one stage the defendant believed that his daughter had been killed.  Dr Fama considered the question of whether a reasonable doubt was raised, and if so, whether it was solely attributable to the defendant's mental illness.  He concluded that any dispute as to the facts was, indeed, only the result of the defendant's mental condition.  In coming to that conclusion, he considered that the defendant was acting solely as a result of the delusions he held with respect to the deceased.  These also included delusions as to the danger presented by the deceased to the defendant. 

1. To the same effect is the report and oral evidence of Dr van de Hoef.  She diagnosed the defendant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  She also considered in detail the question of whether a dispute of fact arising from the assertions made by the defendant in respect of his acting in self-defence could be attributable solely to his mental condition at the time, and in particular, to his psychotic thinking, and concluded that indeed, that was the case.

1. She stated in her report that:

“There is nothing in the material available to me to suggest [the deceased] was likely to have provoked or even spontaneously approached Mr Kapusta (though he may have, in response to a taunt or insult). How or why he got inside Mr Kapusta's unit is not satisfactorily explained, though one of the witnesses said he heard a thump on Eddie's front door "as if someone (was) going through the door really quickly".  The account of [the deceased] biting Mr Kapusta's ear was not corroborated by a dentist.  The fight inside the unit was heard but not seen by the neighbours.  What was witnessed was the violent struggle between the two men on the balcony after they existed the unit, but the identity of the instigator was not clear to the witnesses at that stage, as [the deceased] was the one stabbed and the one holding the knife.  It seems to me he was in the wrong place (near [X], the focus of Mr Kapusta's delusions) at the wrong time (when Mr Kapusta was floridly psychotic, desperate, fearful and about to flee from his delusions and/or act on them by going to the police).  The dispute of facts (regarding self-defence) therefore, appears to me to be entirely related to Mr Kapusta's psychotic thinking, then and now.”

1. The clinical evidence is thus that the defendant held very extreme delusions primarily about a neighbour, X, to the effect that that individual was engaged in paedophilia and other crimes and that those delusions had developed to incorporate the deceased, either on the morning of the stabbing or possibly the previous evening.  There is evidence not only in the statements given to psychiatrists, but also, in my opinion, clear evidence in the record of interview which supports the view that the delusions which had primarily been held in respect of X had developed to incorporate the deceased. 

1. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no dispute of fact which can be attributed to any other cause than the defendant's mental condition.  In coming to that conclusion I have had regard also to the advice offered by the assisting psychiatrists.  In those circumstances, I am satisfied that at the time of the offence in question, the defendant was of unsound mind within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2000.

1. I make a forensic order that the defendant be detained as a forensic patient in The Park High Security Program AMHS. 

1. I have considered the opinion offered by the assisting psychiatrists in relation to the question of whether limited community treatment ought to be approved and given what has been said, I consider that it ought to be approved, but in a very restricted manner.  I approve escorted limited community treatment, at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist, consisting of closed bus trips off the grounds of The Park Centre for Mental Health and escorted limited community treatment on the grounds of The Park, but only on the conditions that:

1.The defendant is to remain under the escort of at least two health service staff members nominated by the authorised psychiatrist for the duration of the limited community treatment; and

2.For the purposes of escorted limited treatment, the defendant complies with the directions of the nominated staff member or members for the duration of that treatment.