Re Lopez

[2006] QMHC 26

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Lopez [2006] QMHC 26

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF JUNE MARION LOPEZ

PROCEEDING NO:

No 0093 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2006

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr D A Grant

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   The defendant was not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged unlawful wounding

2.   The defendant is fit for trial

3.   The proceedings against the defendant are to be continued according to law

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with unlawfully wounding the complainant, her husband – where defendant stabbed complainant in his back and stomach after he made a sexual advance – where defendant alleged that the complainant had subjected her to emotional and psychological abuse – where defendant subsequently diagnosed with a depressive disorder by a number of psychiatrists – where one opinion was that the defedant was suffering from a major depressive illness at the time of the alleged stabbing which could have deprived her of the capacity to know that she ought not to do the act – whether defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence – where defendant fit for trial

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 27
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

The defendant appeared on her own behalf
Mr Tate for the Director of Mental Health
Mr Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

The defendant appeared on her own behalf
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

1. HOLMES J:  Mrs Lopez is charged with the unlawful wounding of her husband, Clement Lopez, on 21 January 2005.  They had been married for over 30 years; Mr Lopez was some 20 years older than she.  Their marriage, according to Mr Lopez's statement, had deteriorated over the last six years or so.  He claimed that Mrs Lopez had a boyfriend, although no independent evidence appears to exist of that.  Prior to the alleged wounding, he had been sleeping in a spare room or a caravan in the yard. 

1. I should emphasise that what follows now is Mr Lopez's account, in his statement, of the events of the day in question.  He says he woke at about 6.15, having slept in the caravan.  Wearing a pair of shorts but no shirt, he went to the house and entered Mrs Lopez's bedroom.  There he said to her, he says in a joking fashion, "Do you want to look after my libido or are you going to get up and make me a cup of coffee?"  According to him, Mrs Lopez responded by saying that he should not go into her bedroom.  She got out of bed, dressed and went to the kitchen.  Mr Lopez asked if she wanted some items taken out to the shed but she said she did not.  He went past the kitchen to the back steps of the house but before going down them, felt a sharp pain in his back where, as it turned out, he had been stabbed.  He ran onto the back lawn where he collapsed.

1. Mr Lopez says that Mrs Lopez stood over him holding a knife, screaming that she would kill him and would cut his throat.  She stabbed him again in the stomach.  He grabbed her arm.  She abandoned the knife and walked towards the house.  Mr Lopez managed to get his son's attention and the ambulance was called.  Mrs Lopez meanwhile went back into the house.  All of that, as I say, is in Mr Lopez's statement.

1. Mr Lopez proved to have two wounds to the back and one to the stomach.  The police arrived shortly after the incident and went into the kitchen of the house.  Mrs Lopez entered carrying her glasses.  She was handcuffed.  While that was occurring, she said words to the effect, "I couldn't take it any more."  One of the officers asked if her husband had done anything to her.  She said - and this, I should say comes from one of the officer's statements - "He came in and demanded sex.  I just couldn't take it any more".

1. In a record of interview that same day, Mrs Lopez confirmed that her husband had been sleeping in the caravan.  She said that he came into her bedroom in shorts, took his clothes off, lay on the bed and demanded sex.  She refused and he became verbally abusive.  She got dressed.  Her husband pushed her, which made her feel threatened.  Her last recall was of running out of the bedroom.  She could not remember stabbing him.  Her next recall was of her husband calling her son, telling him to get an ambulance.  When Mrs Lopez was asked in the interview why she had stabbed him, assuming that she had done so, she answered, "Just years of emotional and psychological abuse, I suppose.  I just snapped.  I don't know". 

1. Mrs Lopez was given bail.  On 9 February 2005, she presented to the Gold Coast Hospital suffering from depression and was admitted to the psychiatric unit, where she remained until 12 April 2005.  A diagnosis was made of a major depressive episode.  On admission, she gave a history of a long-term abusive relationship and of having stabbed her husband following an attempted rape and death threat by shooting.  (And here I interpolate, the police did find a gun in Mr Lopez's caravan.)  She did not, on admission, give any specific account of the stabbing itself and, in the notes of 21February 2005, it is recorded that she says she has no memory of it.  On 7 April 2005, when she was asked about the day of the stabbing, she again said that her husband had wanted to have sex with her, that she had gone to the kitchen and got a knife.  He was on the stairs but she could remember nothing further. 

1. Dr Kazim was the psychiatrist treating Mrs Lopez at the Gold Coast Hospital.  He has given a report which is undated but must have been completed very shortly after her discharge.  His diagnosis was of major depressive disorder, recurrent and severe, without psychotic features, and of cluster B personality traits.  He expressed the opinion that at the time of the alleged stabbing Mrs Lopez was of sound mind; that there was no evidence of any extreme psychotic process impairing her judgment or insight.  It was clear, he said, that she had been very depressed and was suffering what he described as extreme psycho-motor retardation; but he thought, at the time, she had acted out of anger and frustration.  She was fit for trial.

1. Dr Buntting, who has since taken over Mrs Lopez's treatment, has provided two reports, the latest of 6 April 2006, in which he gives a diagnosis of major depression in remission in a person with a dependent personality disorder.  He has not commented on unsoundness, but he says that she is fit for trial.

1. Mrs Lopez was assessed by two experienced forensic psychiatrists for the purpose of this reference.  Dr Fama gave two reports, dated 11 October 2005 and 29 March 2006, and gave evidence here.  He had made a diagnosis of dependent personality disorder and recurrent depressive disorder.  In respect of the former, he made two points: that it explains Mrs Lopez's remaining, for so long, passively in an unhappy marriage; and also that, under severe stress, a dependent person may react with extreme rage.

1. Mrs Lopez gave Dr Fama no history of any psychotic thinking and was unable to recall her motivation for the assault.  Dr Fama accepted that Mrs Lopez was probably suffering depressive symptoms at the time of the alleged stabbing, but he did not think that there was evidence to support a finding of depressive disorder at the time or deprivation of any capacity, as opposed to substantial impairment of the relevant capacities.  Mrs Lopez was, he said, fit for trial.

1. Dr McVie also had given two reports, of 19 December 2005 and 30 March 2006, and gave evidence here.  She noted that around the relevant time Mrs Lopez had been unhappy, depressed, sleeping and eating very poorly.  But, she conceded, it was difficult to get a clear history of when that started and its severity, and to determine whether there were any psychotic features.  She made the point that Mrs Lopez had been menopausal, a period of hormonal change which she says is often associated with depression.  There were other stressors around at the relevant time: Mrs Lopez's daughter's marriage and her husband's opposition to it, her husband's wishing to sell their house and return to Spain.

1. At the time of seeing Dr McVie, Mrs Lopez was still displaying what Dr McVie described as residual symptoms of depression.  Dr McVie thought it likely that the onset of the depression was before rather than after the incident.  In her earlier report she expressed the opinion that at the time of the alleged stabbing Mrs Lopez was more likely than not suffering from a major depressive illness.  She said, rather tentatively, that that may have been sufficient to deprive her of the capacity to know she ought not to do the act.  In evidence, Dr McVie said it was possible she was deprived of that capacity, and then advanced to a conclusion that it was more probable than not.  She explained her approach by suggesting that Mrs Lopez was so overwhelmed with helplessness, interpreting everything as a threat to her, as to lose the relevant capacity. 

1. Dr McVie conceded there was no clear evidence of psychosis.  She did not think that the record of interview, which she reviewed for the purposes of her later report, reflected any real recognition by Mrs Lopez that she had carried out the stabbing.  She suggested in her later report that the difference in accounts between Mrs Lopez and Mr Lopez as to whether the former had his trousers on and made the remark about his libido might indicate delusional misinterpretation by Mrs Lopez.  She did not think Mrs Lopez met the criteria for a dependent personality disorder.  She was fit for trial.

1. Now, it seems to me that, of the two reporting psychiatrists, Dr McVie's reports do have a strongly speculative tone to them.  That, perhaps, is not surprising given there are questions in respect of which the contemporary evidence is so slight; the first being whether there was a depressive illness at the relevant time, as opposed to one clearly developing and increasing afterwards, and the second whether, if there was an illness, it was of such severity as to deprive Mrs Lopez of any of the relevant capacities.  It does seem that Dr McVie's conclusions might have become a little firmer over time although, to be fair, at the end of the day her evidence seemed to come down to this: that if Mrs Lopez's description of the events was correct, it was difficult to support deprivation on the balance of probabilities.

1. On the other hand, though, it seems rather speculative to suppose that there was a delusional component.  That is particularly so given the context, in which there clearly was a hostile relationship and, even on Mr Lopez's evidence, there was an unwelcome advance by him for sex, whether he was being serious or not.  It seems to me perfectly conceivable that Mrs Lopez's description in the record of interview of what happened that day prior to the stabbing is correct and that the stabbing is explicable in terms of her reaction to real events.

1. I do not find in the evidence support for Dr McVie's suggestions, in effect, of some dispassionate dissociated event.  It seems to me that there is every explanation for it.

1. It was not, it seems to me, an isolated incident.  There was a trigger and there were, it would appear, signs of anger in what occurred. 

1. In short, I find Dr Fama's analysis the more compelling in the background of everything that is known about the case which is available to the Court to act on.  I am supported, in that view, by the opinions of Dr Wood and Dr Grant. 

1. For that reason I find that Mrs Lopez was not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged unlawful wounding on 21 January 2005.  The evidence is that she is fit for trial.

1. That is the finding I make.  The charge should proceed according to law.