Re Meredith

[2010] QMHC 38

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Meredith [2010] QMHC 38

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF GRANT WESLEY MEREDITH

PROCEEDING:

No 0062 of 2010

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2010

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr E N McVie
Dr J M Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1. That at the time of the alleged offences the subject of

the reference, the defendant was not suffering from
unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld);

2. That the defendant is fit for trial;
3. That proceedings against the defendant continue

according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with two counts of rape and two counts of murder – where defendant had alcohol dependence, anti-social personality traits and sexual paraphilia – whether intoxication played a role in the commission of the offences – whether defendant was of unsound mind or diminished responsibility

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

J Briggs for the Defendant
D Lang for the Director of Mental Health

B Campbell for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

PHILIPPIDES J:

1. Grant Meredith is charged with the murder of Kathryn Daley and two counts of rape on 17 February 2008.  The charges were referred to this Court on 19 March 2010 for a determination as to the defendant's state of mind at the relevant time.  The reference was accompanied by a report from Dr Morris dated 2 October 2009. In addition, Court ordered examinations were conducted by Drs Grant and Voita.  All reporting doctors gave oral evidence.

1. The defendant has reported patchy recall of the night of 17 February 2008 and it is apparent that he also reports to have been intoxicated on the night in question.  However, the defendant does not dispute the facts concerning the charges and there is thus no relevant dispute of fact precluding this Court from determining the reference. 

1. I note that Dr Voita considered that the defendant's claim of patchy recall was secondary to intoxication and not due to any mental disease or disorder.  She was unable to find any evidence of disease of the mind for the purposes of section 27 of the Criminal Code.  She diagnosed alcohol dependence and anti-social personality disorder and did not support a defence of unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility.

1. Dr Grant also made diagnoses of alcohol dependence and anti-social personality traits, in addition to sexual paraphilia.  He stated that he was unable to find any evidence of the defendant suffering from a mental infirmity or disease of the mind for the purposes of section 27 of the Criminal Code. 

1. He noted that there was no evidence of psychotic symptomotology. Nor was there any relevant cognitive deficit.  In those circumstances, his opinion was that there was no support for unsoundness of mind nor for diminished responsibility, there being no abnormality of mind operative at the relevant time.

1. Dr Morris likewise did not support a finding of unsoundness of mind.  In his report he had postulated a possibility for a diminished responsibility on the premise of alcohol intoxication combined with sexual deviation and possible intermittent explosive disorder.  However, on further consideration of the matter, he resiled entirely from any support for intermittent explosive disorder as a factor, particularly given that there was no indication in the defendant's history for that diagnosis.  Dr Morris indicated that once intermittent explosive disorder and intoxication were excluded, there was no basis at all for a finding of diminished responsibility. He therefore supported the conclusions of Drs Voita and Grant.

1. In the circumstances, I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time, nor suffering from diminished responsibility.  The material indicates that the defendant is fit for trial.  Accordingly, the proceedings will continue according to law.  I grant leave to the parties to use the medical reports before the Court in any further proceedings.