Re Manganaro

[2006] QMHC 12

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Manganaro [2006] QMHC 012

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF MICHAEL MANGANARO

PROCEEDING NO:

No 0061 of 2005

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2006

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr D A Grant

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1. The defendant was of not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence of stealing
2. There is a reasonable doubt, within the meaning of s 268 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), that the defendant committed the alleged offence of assault
3. The defendant is fit for trial
4. 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 common assault and stealing – where he took money from his father who pursued him and a scuffle ensued – where defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia – where he held a number of delusions including recurrent ones in respect of his father – whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences – whether he was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), Section 27
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2, s 268

COUNSEL:

Mr Farmer for the defendant
Mr Tate for the Director of Mental Health
Mr Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

1. HOLMES J:  Mr Manganaro is charged with common assault and stealing on the 8th of October 2003.  The allegation is that at about 11am in the morning he walked into his father's kitchen expressing a desire to speak to him, which his father rejected.  His father had $400 protruding from his shirt pocket which, it is said, Mr Manganaro took.  He then ran out of the kitchen pursued by his father, who had armed himself with a broom handle.  Mr Manganaro, it seems, climbed onto the back of his utility to access his house, which had no steps at that time.  His father let the air out of the tyres of the utility.  There was a scuffle.  The father says that Mr Manganaro hit him over the shoulder with a metal chair.  Mr Manganaro, on the other hand, maintains that he used the chair to ward off his father.  His father had him by the legs, and, Mr Manganaro has said, he punched him once, or hit him once, in order to make him let go.

1. On a good deal of the evidence there is no dispute.  The three psychiatrists who have examined Mr Manganaro, who are Dr Fama, Dr Schramm and Dr Beech, all agree that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia with psychotic symptoms, that he has a number of delusions with common themes, which include some revolving around his father.  He was not deprived of the capacities of control and to know what he was doing; the area of contest is as to the capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong.  In respect of it, Dr Schramm and Dr Beech agree that his judgment was certainly impaired by delusional beliefs but say that he was not deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act.  Dr Fama on the other hand takes a view that he was completely deprived.

1. Dr Fama approaches it this way:  he says that a person who, like Mr Manganaro, thinks that he is under constant threat and has been robbed at various stages, is not capable of working out the rights and wrongs in the usual sense of an act such as that alleged; that Mr Manganaro was, to his mind, remedying the wrongs he had suffered by taking the money to which he was entitled; and that his alleged assault of his father was a resistance in a context in which he believed he was entitled to the money and that he was morally correct in taking it.  Dr Wood subscribes to that view.  He finds Dr Fama's explanation the more satisfactory one. 

1. Dr Schramm and Dr Beech, while accepting that there are delusional ideas revolving around Mr Manganaro's father, particularly in relation to a particular belief that he had been robbed of $3,000 while in hospital, say that other ideas that he has, or had, are not necessarily delusional; for example, a belief that he ought to have been paid for a bet placed on a racehorse.  It is the case, in their view, that Mr Manganaro was ill and delusional at the time of the offences. Clearly enough from the interview with the police, which he underwent the following day, he suffered then from delusional ideas about his relationship with the United States Government, about certain things Queensland Health had done and about activities of the Federal Police.  The perception of those two doctors, though, is that, while the delusions from which Mr Manganaro suffered in respect of his father's perceived taking of money from him or withholding of money from him, would have contributed to his state of mind, they did not deprive him of the capacity to appreciate that what he was doing was wrong.  I must say that, like Dr Grant, I find their analysis the more compelling one in this particular context.

1. Dr Beech points out that the taking of the money was opportunistic.  Mr Manganaro did not go to the premises to take money because of any belief or perception that the money in question was his.  There was simply this general idea of grievance and entitlement.  It seems to me that there is a distinction here between Mr Manganaro's believing that his father owed him money because of past events, whether delusional or non-delusional, and his knowing whether he could simply take money from his possession; and that I think is really the distinction that Dr Beech and Dr Schramm identify. Dr Beech also points out that Mr Manganaro acted purposefully once he took the money.  It does not follow, of course, that his running away indicates any sense of guilt, as opposed to a retreat from his father's likely response, but there is nothing disorganised in his response. 

1. On the whole, as I have said, I find the analysis of those two psychiatrists the more compelling in this case, although it certainly is far from a black and white area.  I should go on to say that, in relation to the alleged assault, I find compelling Dr Beech's view that one does not have to look for any delusional explanation; it was a response to the immediate events of the struggle.

1. The conclusion I reach is that Mr Manganaro was not suffering from a deprivation of his capacity to know that he ought not do the act when he took the money, and was not of unsound mind at the time the theft allegedly occurred.  It follows, I think, from adopting that approach that I ought to have a reasonable doubt about the assault, because there are two distinct descriptions, one of which, emanating from Mr Manganaro, is not obviously delusional or irrational.  And, on that basis, the better approach in relation to the assault is simply to be satisfied that there is a reasonable doubt that he committed that offence.

1. The consensus of views is that he is fit for trial, and that has been endorsed by Dr Leong relatively recently.  Accordingly, the matter should proceed according to law. 

1. There are obviously a number of extreme mitigating circumstances in this case and, on any view, Mr Manganaro's judgment was impaired, so I think it is entirely appropriate to order the release of the reports to Mr Manganaro's legal representatives for use in any subsequent criminal proceedings.