Re Kussainov

[2010] QMHC 42

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

 Re Kussainov [2010] QMHC 42

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN RESPECT OF GABIT KUSSAINOV

PROCEEDING:

No 0249 of 2010

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2010

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J M Lawrence

DR E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

That the defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)1.   

That a forensic order not be made. 2.   

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF

MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with commit public nuisance, common assault and serious assault – where defendant was a 20 year old Kazakh national studying at university in Australia - where defendant suffered from a manic illness with psychotic features – where
defendant has been on an involuntary treatment order and receiving ECT – whether defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the relevant times

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

S Crofton for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

S Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

PHILIPPIDES J:

1. Mr Kussainov is charged with commit public nuisance on 14 August 2010, common assault on 15 August 2010, and serious assault on 14 August 2010.

1. The clinical material before the Court indicates that the defendant was suffering from a manic illness with psychotic features at the relevant times, and that he was deprived of all of the relevant capacities.  Accordingly I find that he was of unsound mind in relation to all of the charges.

1. The defendant is a 20-year-old Kazakh national who is presently in Australia on a temporary student visa.  He was studying on a scholarship from the Kazakhstan Government.  He has no family support in Australia, and indeed he has no ability to finance his stay in Australia other than through his scholarship.

1. He is presently very unwell, and has had to undergo ECT treatment.  The report of the 26th of November 2010 indicates that there has been some improvement in his condition, but he does remain unwell, and lacking of insight.  He is therefore still under an involuntary treatment order.

1. The treating team are well aware of his position.  It seems that there has been some question mark in relation to the defendant continuing his study here, but the defendant's legal representative has indicated that he wishes to return to his country of origin and does not wish to remain here for study.

1. I also note that family members have come to Australia to assist him, but because of a family bereavement his mother will have to return to Kazakhstan.

1. Nevertheless, arrangements are being made to ensure that he will be able to have appropriate care when he is well enough to leave Australia.  He has, as I mentioned, no interest in remaining in Australia, and no support in Australia.  Clearly he will require long term support from his family.  

1. I accept that the ITO that is in place is an appropriate management for his situation.  There are checks and balances that exist in relation to a revocation of an ITO, and  in the circumstances of this very unusual case, it is appropriate in my view that no forensic order be imposed. 

1. When the defendant is well enough, and I have confidence that the treating team will approach that matter with great care, he will be able to pursue his intention to return home where he intends to stay. 

1. I direct that a copy of today's transcript be provided to the treating team.