Re Logan
[2010] QMHC 22
•18 March 2010
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION:
Re Logan [2010] QMHC 22
PARTIES:
REFERENCE BY THE PATIENT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF ROBERT IAN LOGAN
PROCEEDING:
No 111 of 2009
DELIVERED ON:
18 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
24 February 2010
JUDGE:
Philippides J
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:
Dr F T Varghese
Dr E N McVieFINDINGS AND ORDER:
1. That the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act2000 (Qld);
2. That the defendant was not of diminished responsibility at the relevant time as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act2000 (Qld);
3. That the defendant is fit for trial;
4. That the proceedings continue according to law.
CATCHWORDS:
MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with one count of murder – whether defendant was deprived of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offence – whether intoxication played a role in the commission of the alleged offence – whether defendant is fit for trial – whether proceedings should continue according to law
COUNSEL:
Mr J W Moore for the Defendant
Mr D J Lang for the Director of Mental HealthMr S G Bain for the Director of Public Prosecutions
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental HealthThe Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)
PHILIPPIDES J: Robert Logan has been charged with the murder of Ben Huntingford on 21 June 2006. The defendant’s mental condition at the time has been referred to this court.
Dr Beech
Dr Beech saw the defendant in May and June 2007. In his report of 11 June 2007, he noted a history and description of psychotic symptoms that preceded the alleged offence occurring in the context of a head-injury in early adolescence, possible seizures, a susceptibility to intoxication from alcohol at small amounts and a history of illicit drug use.
He opined as possible diagnoses that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia, epilepsy or a drug induced psychosis. He noted that “clinically, from interview, the most likely fit is of someone who has developed schizophrenia but who may be embellishing the symptoms”. Dr Beech also stated:
“It is difficult though to see how the offences could have arisen primarily from a psychotic process. He gives no account of his actions that are simply psychotic other than the account at police interview of the victim making homosexual advances. The latter could be seen as paranoid in nature but still his actions do not speak primarily of a delusion.
… One possibility is that he was intoxicated on the evening and this exacerbated an underlying psychosis on which he acted. This is in congruence (sic) with his account to police and his mother’s account.
At present I am of the opinion that the most likely scenario, notwithstanding what he said to me, is that on the evening Mr Logan was intoxicated with alcohol and possibly drugs and acted in an erratic and violent way towards someone he thought had accosted him sexually. His judgment may have been impaired and he may at the time not have had the capacity to know the full meaning of his actions. In the absence of this intoxication he would not have been deprived of any capacity that would have rendered him of unsound mind.
Similarly, he would be seen to have suffered from an abnormality of mind but again in the absence of intoxication he would have known what he was doing was wrong.”
In his oral evidence, Dr Beech indicated that he had excluded epilepsy as a result of further investigations and that in the final analysis he considered it unlikely that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia, given the longitudinal picture of his mental presentation.
Professor Burrows
Professor Burrows provided a number of reports. In a report dated 11 November 2008 he stated that the defendant:
“… would appear to be a frequent drug and alcohol abuser. It would appear that he would have been under the considerable influence of alcohol and a combination of prescription and illicit drugs, prior to and after the killing.
It is of interest that he had a history of psychotic symptoms including auditory and hallucinations, delusions and the experience of being controlled. The possibility that he was suffering from schizophrenia is high. The role of psychotropic drugs was likely to disinhibit him. It is highly likely that he was very disturbed at the time. …”
In further correspondence dated 29 December 2008 compiled after interviewing the defendant, Professor Burrows opined that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia but noted:
“[The defendant] said that prior to the 21st June, 2006 he had been drug free for approximately 6 months. He said he did this as he had been prescribed Luvox and wanted to see whether this would work.
He describes frequent auditory and visual hallucinations including command hallucinations … He admitted that he had told lies at the Police interview that he was not attacked by the victim of his attack. He said that the voices were telling him that if he told the truth he would be punished and that he should give the explanations he gave. He still has auditory hallucinations while in prison, he said the current psychiatrist had tried him on Risperidone (an antipsychotic drug) but had stopped it as he got agitated, he was now only on Mirtazapine (Avanza) half a tablet ie 15mg for sleeping.
From the evidence and previous reports I believe he was very impaired at the time of the assault.
Antidepressant medications eg Luvox can make Schizophrenia worse particularly during a psychotic episode. He denies being on other drugs at the time.”
In further correspondence dated 4 May 2009, Professor Burrows stated:
“In my previous brief report it would appear that [the defendant] would have been under considerable influence of alcohol and a combination of prescription drugs and illicit drugs prior to and after the alleged offence. I understand that there is doubt that [he] had taken illicit drugs on the day of the alleged offence.
There is direct evidence of his alcohol consumption on that day. He drank beer and then shared mixed drink cans of whisky and coke with his father. Robert had told police that he had shared a couple of jugs of beer with his father at the pub and had shared some pre mixed drinks at home plus a bottle of Guinness. He also told police that he had taken 3 x 5mg tablets of Valium over four or five hours and he had also taken a dose of Luvox.
I do believe a mixture of a major antidepressant like Luvox plus Valium and or Cannabis is going to have a major effect on his behaviour and mental process.”
In giving evidence Professor Burrows confirmed his view that the defendant suffers from schizophrenia. He also opined that the defendant was at the relevant time deprived of all of the relevant capacities. However, he further indicated that he considered that intoxication with alcohol and illicit substances contributed to some extent to the state of mind resulting in deprivation. Dr Burrows was of the view that, even if it were not accepted that the defendant was deprived of a relevant capacity, the defendant was nevertheless substantially impaired, but that intoxication was a factor in that impairment. This accords with the opinion expressed in his report of 4 May 2009 where he stated:
“It would appear to me that, at the time of the alleged offence he was in a state of mental disease as to deprive him of the capacity to understand clearly. … It would appear that he had been under the influence of a considerable amount of alcohol and took prescription and illicit drugs prior to and after the alleged offence. Apparently he recently smoked cannabis. …
I think the use of psychotropic drugs and alcohol would have had a major effect on him.” (emphasis added)
Dr van de Hoef
In her report to the court dated 22 October 2009, Dr van de Hoef opined that the defendant suffers from a severe antisocial personality disorder and probably had conduct disorder in childhood, observing:
“I think there is a lot of evidence he has difficulty being truthful (including about the type and extent of his illicit drug use), that he has poor impulse control and a propensity to explosive rages, especially when intoxicated. …
I think, despite his history to me, that he also clearly fulfilled DSM diagnostic criteria for alcohol, cannabis and amphetamine abuse at various times throughout his teens, and probably for cannabis dependence, in the lead up to his arrest. He may also have abused benzodiazepines (as he told Dr Beech); if not, and his confession is true, he mixed more than his usual dose with a large amount of alcohol on the day of the offence.
He was on antidepressants for at least 6 months prior to the offences, but I cannot find much evidence he had clinical depression. …”
In her report, Dr van de Hoef discounted epilepsy as a likely diagnosis. However, she accepted schizophrenia as a possible diagnosis, but with considerable reservation, noting:
“… none of the odd beliefs he told me about, and none of the hallucinatory experiences seems in any way related to the offences, nor did they seem to drive them. It is also possible that the sexual overtures he alleged the victim made, and property violations he allegedly perpetrated, were delusional beliefs arising from a psychotic illness, and … acted on them. However, I cannot find any evidence to support that notion; if he had those ideas, he had not voiced them prior to the offences, and has not mentioned them since, which is not what I would expect from delusions strong enough to deprive him of any of the relevant capacities.”
However, by the time she came to give evidence she was inclined towards the view that the defendant did not have schizophrenia, noting that while he continues to describe vivid visual hallucinations, “he is functioning well, his mood is stable, and he is treated only with an antidepressant”.
Dr van de Hoef therefore did not support the proposition that the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time, because she did not consider the defendant to have been suffering from a mental illness. Furthermore, she considered, in any event, that intoxication was a factor that contributed to his mental condition at the material time. In this regard, she noted that:
“Intoxication (with large amounts of alcohol, diazepam and perhaps cannabis and other illicit drugs) is an issue in this case. The effect, I think, would have been to disinhibit him, and heighten his arousal. He had a history of bouts of ‘temper’ or violent rage when intoxicated, as well as a fascination with blood.”
Additionally, Dr van de Hoef considered that, even if one were to accept the view that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia, “it is difficult to say when it had its onset” (noting that other than his account, and his mother stating he had described visual hallucinations since 2004, she could find no evidence to support it being present before the offences) and that it had not resulted in a deprivation of any of the relevant capacities.
With respect to the question of diminished responsibility, Dr van de Hoef stated:
“In my opinion, at the time of the alleged offences, there is a paucity of evidence to support the idea that [the defendant] suffered, at the time of the alleged offences, a state of abnormality of mind, unless the Court deems Antisocial Personality Disorder plus Substance Abuse such a state. However, if the Court accepts the view he did suffer from schizophrenia at the time (drug induced initially or otherwise, possible differential diagnoses in his case) then in my view it did not substantially impair any of the relevant capacities.
I therefore do not support a finding of diminished responsibility.”
Dr Reddan
In her report dated 19 November 2009, Dr Reddan could find no objective evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental illness at the relevant time. She noted:
“… his account of the psychotic symptoms is not consistent with most psychotic illnesses. Panoramic visual hallucinations can occur in the setting of rare forms of epilepsy, but there is no evidence that [he] suffers from epilepsy, and the overall evidence in relation to this crime contraindicates seizure activity ... In spite of detailed psychiatric evaluation there is still much about [the defendant’s] psychological functioning that is not clear but the ingestion of fluvoxamine and diazepam cannot explain these crimes.”
Dr Reddan reported that the defendant gave conflicting evidence as to intoxication and was inclined to consider that he was not intoxicated at the relevant time. She noted that the defendant claimed not to have any cause for anger towards the victim and noted that:
“It is likely that his initial explanations to the police after he confessed to the killing are more relevant than his previous or later claims. The killing of Ben Huntingford was extremely brutal and involved considerable suffering to the victim. There was clearly a significant sexual aspect to this crime, and aside from initially claiming to the police that Mr Huntingford had earlier sexually assaulted him, the sexual nature of the crime has never been explained. The factual details of the crime raises the likelihood of a sadistic sexual motivation being a significant aspect of this crime.”
In any event, Dr Reddan did not consider that there was evidence of any deprivation of capacity (nor did she give evidence supporting a substantial impairment of capacity). Rather she stated:
“The attempts to destroy evidence indicate that the perpetrator understood the nature and quality of his acts and that he was sufficiently in command of himself to consider what evidence he might be leaving behind. The Records of Interview similarly suggest that [he] was in command of himself and he expressed an understanding of the seriousness and nature of the alleged [offence].”
Conclusion
The weight of the clinical evidence does not support a finding that at the relevant time the defendant was of unsound mind or of diminished responsibility.
I note that Dr Burrows considered that the defendant suffers from schizophrenia. While Drs Beech and van de Hoef were prepared to consider the possibility that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia, they ultimately discounted that possibility after having the benefit of considering the diagnosis from a longitudinal point of view. Furthermore, neither considered that there was any psychosis operating at the relevant time so as to amount to a deprivation of any relevant capacity. Moreover, Dr van de Hoef did not consider there was any substantial impairment. While Dr Beech did not rule out that the defendant was substantially impaired in the capacity to know, both he and Dr van de Hoef saw intoxication as contributing to the defendant’s state of mind and as impacting on his capacity to know he ought not to do the acts in question.
Dr Burrows, who as I have mentioned, considered the defendant to be suffering from schizophrenia, was also firmly of the view that intoxication with alcohol and illicit substances was a contributing factor in the deprivation and impairment of the three capacities.
I note Dr Reddan’s opinion that there was no evidence of psychosis or intoxication. Rather, she saw the defendant’s conduct in terms of his personality pathology or psychological functioning.
I also note that Dr Varghese in commenting on the clinical evidence, advised:
“Looking overall … at the clinical data, including the longitudinal history before and after the killing my impression is that the principal issue is a disorder of personality associated with body substance abuse. If there had been psychotic episodes they’re likely to have been a manifestation of substance abuse and any psychotic symptoms subsequently represent either pseudo psychosis associated with personality disorder or embellishment given the absence of any objective signs of psychotic illness like schizophrenia.
The defence has also raised the issue of treatment with Luvox or Fluvoxamine, SSRI group antidepressant. My advice … is that it’s unlikely to be a factor. Fluvoxamine and other drugs which are widely prescribed cannot bring about psychosis in the absence of schizophrenia and this was also the advice of Dr Burrows.”
Likewise, Dr McVie’s advice was that the opinion of Drs Beech and van de Hoef should be preferred, that at the relevant time significant intoxication was present, possibly with some associated psychotic features.
On the basis of the evidence presented, I am unable to be satisfied that the defendant was deprived or substantially impaired in respect of a relevant capacity as a result of a mental illness. Furthermore, I consider that intoxication was a substantial factor contributing to the defendant’s state of mind at the relevant time.
I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind and was not of diminished responsibility. The defendant is fit for trial. Accordingly, the proceeding will continue according to law.
0
0
0