Re La Rosa
[2007] QMHC 40
•20 November 2007
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION: | Re La Rosa [2007] QMHC 40 |
PARTIES: | REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF FRANK CANDLORO LA ROSA |
PROCEEDING NO: | No 46 of 2007 |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 November 2007 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATES: | 14 November 2007 |
JUDGE: | Philippides J |
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: | Dr J M Lawrence |
FINDINGS AND ORDERS: | 1. The defendant was not of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences. 2. The defendant is fit for trial. 3. The proceedings are to be continued according to law. |
CATCHWORDS: | MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with various dishonesty offences – where experts agreed that the defendant was suffering from an amphetamine induced psychosis at the time of the alleged offences – where expert opinion differed as to whether the defendant’s psychosis existed independently of the intoxicating effects of amphetamines – whether the defendant’s psychosis at the relevant time was to some extent a result of intentional intoxication – whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time – whether the defendant is fit for trial |
COUNSEL: | J Briggs for the defendant S Vasta for The Director of Public Prosecutions |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) |
PHILIPPIDES J: The defendant, Frank Candloro La Rosa is charged with 10 dishonesty offences.
Background
The charges concern four separate complainants and cover the period 1 October 2004 to 25 February 2005. In relation to the first complainant, the defendant is charged with four counts of fraud in relation to three dishonoured cheques and a fourth falsified cheque. In relation to the second complainant, the defendant is charged with two counts of fraud and one count of dishonestly applying for his own use a credit card number. In relation to the third complainant, the defendant is charged with stealing as a servant and with forging a cheque with intent to defraud. In relation to the fourth complainant, the defendant is charged with dishonestly obtaining money by inducing the complainant to cash a wage cheque. The matter of the defendant’s mental state at the relevant times has been referred to this court.
The defendant has a criminal history which includes several convictions for dishonesty offences of a like nature to those the subject of the present reference. He was released from prison in September 2004. The defendant also has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. He commenced using amphetamines in 2002 and became a regular user. The defendant reported that he first began to have paranoid suspicions of his de facto wife’s fidelity during 2003.
After the defendant’s release from prison in September 2004, he turned to using Ice, crystallised methyl-amphetamine, and his paranoid suspicions concerning his wife intensified. Within a short period of his daily use of Ice he developed a systemised and pre‑occupying conspiracy, involving not only the infidelity of his partner, but her being involved in a vast organised network of persons involved in some sort of sex club. Three of the complainants were incorporated into his delusional beliefs. There is evidence that the defendant believed that the first complainant was the “ringleader” of a network of sexual perverts, whose “swinger” club provided sexual stimulants for women including his partner.
The defendant came to believe that the network was deliberately trying to prevent him from uncovering and exposing their activities and that every person he came into contact with was involved and that everywhere he looked provided evidence of a conspiracy. The defendant had apparently made multiple complaints to the police about his concerns regarding the sex club and the sex orgies that were going on. He was eventually placed under a domestic violence order on an application by his partner.
During the period of the alleged offending, the defendant had a hospital admission to the Royal Brisbane Hospital on 9 December 2004. On that occasion, he was brought to hospital by his partner, who was concerned about his bizarre behaviour. He was diagnosed by a Dr Cooksley as probably suffering from an amphetamine induced psychosis and commenced on anti‑psychotic medication. He remained an inpatient until 17 December 2004, at which stage the defendant’s psychotic symptoms cleared and he was discharged on an involuntary treatment order, with anti-psychotic medication being prescribed. The evidence indicates that after discharge the defendant recommenced using Ice on a daily basis. He ceased to take his anti-psychotic medication (Risperidone) and only continued with the anti-depressant medication that had been prescribed. He attended no follow‑up appointments until he was threatened with a return to hospital under the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld). He reported continuing to use Ice at least once a day and up to three times a day over the following six to eight months.
A further admission in February 2005 was reported, by which stage the defendant believed that everyone, including police and hospital staff, was implicated in a conspiracy in respect of the sex club. There was also an admission between 6 June 2005 and 9 June 2005 after the alleged offending when the defendant was brought to the hospital by his case manager because the defendant had been complaining about paranoid ideation and agitation. The defendant was re‑admitted between 31 August 2005 and 2 September 2005, complaining of being “agitated, scattered, can’t cope” and believing that his partner was “playing games with him”. He had again been non-compliant with medication.
Dr Fama
In his report of 10 January 2007, Dr Fama diagnosed the defendant as suffering from methyl-amphetamine dependence syndrome (currently abstinent) and delusional disorder, induced by methyl-amphetamine (currently in remission). Dr Fama opined that the defendant’s protracted paranoid psychosis was probably present throughout the period of the alleged offences, noting that his symptoms had been confirmed by his partner and recorded by hospital staff.
Dr Fama opined that the symptoms were consistent with an amphetamine induced psychosis and that the defendant’s mental state did not correspond with a simple intoxication. He was of the view that the defendant was, as a result of a disease of the mind (amphetamine induced psychosis), deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts in question, in that he felt justified in acting as he did because of his delusional thinking. In those circumstances, Dr Fama supported a defence of unsoundness of mind.
Dr Schramm
Dr Schramm, in his report dated 3 July 2007, supported a diagnosis of amphetamine induced psychotic disorder and opined that the defendant was as a result, at least in relation to three of the complainants, deprived of the capacity to know he ought not to do the acts. However, Dr Schramm disagreed with the opinion expressed by Dr Fama that the development of the defendant’s psychotic ideas was not associated with intoxication.
Dr Schramm noted that the defendant’s florid psychosis was associated with daily use of amphetamines in the form of Ice. Dr Schramm also noted that after enforced abstinence and treatment with anti‑psychotic medication, the defendant’s symptoms significantly and quite quickly resolved, leaving him with only very occasional and minor doubts in the following months. The symptoms have remained absent, despite his not using any anti-psychotic medication since mid-2006. Dr Schramm stated in his report:
“I believe that the psychogenic actions of amphetamines, especially those potent actions from the form in ice, would cause an expected inability in one to apply salience to various stimuli … . I would argue that they cause most users to become suspicious and untrusting and that once his theories regarding the network became established, that the continued use of ice meant that so much of what he was seeing continued to confirm his suspicions and cement the delusions. In other words, the high doses of this potent drug dissolved Mr La Rosa’s ability to think rationally and placed him almost permanently in a state of arousal and paranoia …”
Dr Schramm concluded that the defendant was “almost permanently intoxicated with amphetamines during those months when these offences took place” and opined that therefore the defendant’s psychosis arose from and was sustained by ongoing intoxication.
Conclusion
The general concurrence amongst the clinicians was that the defendant was suffering from an amphetamine induced psychosis. However, both assisting psychiatrists agreed with the opinion of Dr Schramm that the psychosis was not of an enduring nature, persisting independently of the intoxicating effects of the agent that induced its occurrence. They advised the court, in accordance with Dr Schramm’s evidence, that given the evidence of regular daily use of amphetamine, it would be impossible to conclude that the psychosis was not made worse to some extent by the ongoing use of the drug and its intoxicating effect. Having considered the expert evidence and the advice of the assisting psychiatrists, I am satisfied that the psychosis from which the defendant was suffering was to some extent the result of intentional intoxication.
I note, in addition, the considerable reservations which the assisting psychiatrists expressed as to whether the defendant’s psychotic thinking ought to be seen as the motivation for his conduct. They pointed in particular to the conduct in question as requiring a degree of connivance and skill by an individual with a history of dishonesty offences. But in any event, the conclusion I have reached as to the role of intoxication throughout the period of the alleged offences precludes a finding that the defendant was of unsound mind.
Accordingly, I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time. The defendant is fit for trial. The proceedings will continue according to law. I grant leave to the parties to refer to the medical reports in further proceedings.
0
0
0