Re Lawler

[2005] QMHC 37

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Lawler [2005] QMHC 037

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF JODI ANNE LAWLER

PROCEEDING NO:

0007 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 October 2005

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr J M Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   In respect of the offences which allegedly occurred on dates prior to 11 August 2004, the defendant is temporarily unfit for trial.

2.   The defendant was of unsound mind as defined in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2 at the time of the offences which allegedly occurred on 11 August 2004.

3.   The defendant is detained, pursuant to a forensic order, to the Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with various offences including charges of fraud, stealing and abduction of a child under 16 – where psychiatric opinion to the effect that the defendant was of unsound mind at time of some of the offences – whether the defendant, at the time of the alleged offences, was deprived of the capacity to understand what she was doing, or the capacity of control, or the capacity to know that she ought not to do the act pursuant to the Criminal Code, s 27 – whether the defendant of unsound mind – whether a forensic order is required – whether the defendant is fit for trial - whether any unfitness is of a temporary or permanent nature

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2

COUNSEL:

D Shepherd for the defendant
W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health

C Kelly 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. HOLMES J:  Ms Lawler is charged with a number of charges:  two charges of fraud on 11 April, 2004; another on 14 April, 2004; entering premises and committing an offence on a date unknown between 29 June and 4 July, 2004; receiving between those same dates; attempted fraud on 3 July 2004; fraud on 6 July, 2004; two charges of stealing on 10 July, 2004; one of entering dwelling and committing an offence on 11 July, 2004 and one of stealing on the same date; two charges of unlawful entry of a vehicle on 10 July, 2004; another of the same offence on 11 July, 2004; one of unlawful use of a motor vehicle on 11 July, 2004; stealing on 19 July, 2004; two charges of abduction of a child under the age of 16 on 11 August, 2004; one of attempted abduction of a child on the same date; two of common assault on that date; one of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle on that date; two of deprivation of liberty on that date; one of possession of a dangerous drug on that date; two of serious assault of a police officer on that date; one of stealing on that date and three of threatening violence on that date. There are simple charges of contravening requirements on 17 July, 2004; public nuisance on that date; something described as 'First instance warrant' on 6 August, 2004; and possession of tainted property on 17 July, 2004 and 19 July, 2004.

1. The evidence as it has emerged is relatively consistent in relation to the earlier offences, by which I really mean those other than the ones committed on 11 August, 2004.  The position is that there is simply insufficient information to arrive at any conclusion of unsoundness of mind.  Some of those offences, particularly those committed at the end of June and the beginning of July in relation to the taking of an EFTPOS machine would, if made out, suggest quite a degree of planning and sophistication.  It was suggested someone else might have been involved.  That, of course, is entirely speculative.  It seems to me that one cannot form any conclusion.  That was really the thrust of the psychiatrists’ evidence in this case. I therefore find in relation to all those offences, which are those other than those allegedly committed on 11 August, 2004, that Ms Lawler was not of unsound mind at the relevant times.

1. The events of 11 August, however, fall into a different category.  It seems that was the date on which Ms Lawler arrived back from an overseas trip and proceeded to behave in what can only be described as a bizarre fashion. One of the first of the charges is that of dangerous driving.  It said that she was seen speeding and overtaking on the wrong side of the road.  More concerningly, it is alleged that she then attempted to entice three children into the vehicle; in fact, succeeded in getting two in with a combination of threats, force and inducement with chocolate; drove them some distance to the house of an old boyfriend; took them inside with, it is alleged, some force and left them there; and then made her way to the Brisbane Exhibition where she was seen to behave and speak again in an erratic and bizarre way.

1. The opinion of the psychiatrists who gave evidence in this case, Dr Sundin, Dr McVie and Dr Shuer, again accords in relation to the bizarre quality of this behaviour.  Dr McVie considers that Ms Lawler is suffering from schizophrenia.  Dr Sundin and Dr Shuer talk in terms of an amphetamine induced psychosis.  In any event, the behaviour is consistent with psychotic behaviour, in its nature.

1. I should mention that there is some suggestion of amphetamine use on that day and clearly, Ms Lawler was a long-term amphetamine user.  She, herself, had claimed to have injected a gram and a Mr Welk, an acquaintance, spoke of her saying that she would go out to score.  But then, he says, she returned, looking, as he put it, "straight".  There is some suggestion in the witness statements of those who saw her at the Exhibition that she was behaving consistently with being affected by drugs.  But there is no concrete evidence that she used amphetamines that day and the behaviour at the Exhibition could as readily be explained as the product of psychosis as that of amphetamine use.  I do not think that there is any hard evidence that intoxication had any involvement in this case.

1. I conclude, therefore, both on the expert evidence and the quality of the conduct on that day, that Ms Lawler was of unsound mind at the time the offences allegedly committed on 11 August, 2004 took place.

1. Then there is the question of fitness for trial.  Both Dr Sundin and Dr McVie had concerns about Ms Lawler's fitness for trial when they last had contact with her, in Dr Sundin's case, in April of this year, in Dr McVie's case, mid-year.  Dr Shuer considered her fit for trial at the time of reporting in June 2005, but in evidence today, she explained that since July, the extent of Ms Lawler's psychosis has become more evident.  More recently, the use of Clozapine to control her psychosis has been impeded by the effects of other physical problems arising from an eating disorder.  And I should say too that Dr Sundin said that if Ms Lawler was not improved from when she saw her in April, she would continue to have concerns about fitness; the evidence seems pretty clear that Ms Lawler is not improved. All the evidence would lead me to have a doubt that Ms Lawler could presently instruct counsel or endure a trial without serious adverse consequences to her mental health. 

1. The findings I make then are that Ms Lawler was not of unsound mind in relation to the April, June and July offences but that she is unfit for trial.  That unfitness is not of a permanent nature.  She was of unsound mind at the time the offences allegedly committed on 11 of August, 2004 occurred.  A forensic order is required in respect of all those matters.  I order that she be detained to the Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service.