Re Metius

[2007] QMHC 36

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Metius [2007] QMHC 036

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF CANDANEACE LEA METIUS

PROCEEDING:

No 0071 of 2006

DELIVERED ON:

1 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J F Wood
Dr J M Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. That there is a substantially material fact so in dispute as defined in s 269(1) of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) as to the opinion of an expert witness that it would be unsafe to make a decision on unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility;

2. That the proceeding is to continue according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF

MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with murder – where statements of defendant are not consistent with other evidence – whether a dispute of fact substantially material to the opinion of an expert witness as defined in s 269(1) Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) arises

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), ss 267, 269(1), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

P T Devereaux for the defendant
W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health
M R Byrne for The Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

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

*Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed (R v Metius [2009] QCA 3)

1. PHILIPPIDES J:  This is a reference in relation to a charge of murder on 21 October 2004. I consider that there is merit in what has been raised by Mr Byrne and that there is a dispute relating to a substantially material fact in this case.

1. In my view the dispute in question goes to the veracity of statements made by the defendant concerning an alleged state of dissociation which is described in a statement in the material before the Court.

1. If the evidence of the defendant on that matter were to be accepted, then according to Dr Kingswell's second report dated 7 February 2006 a substantial impairment of the capacity to know that she ought not do the act is described.  And whilst it might not ultimately be accepted that a defence indeed is raised, to reach such a conclusion would require a view first to be formed in respect of the statements made by the defendant.

1. I observe that some of the expert witnesses have pointed out that the statements of the defendant are at odds with other evidence, such as the evidence to be found in the surveillance video.  That really highlights the issue that is raised by Mr Byrne, which is that there is a preliminary issue as to whether the defendant's evidence is to be accepted or not.  To my mind that is really something that ought to be determined by a jury and which is preliminary in any event to the consideration of the clinical views offered in the reports that have been provided to the Court.

1. In those circumstances, it is not appropriate to determine the issue of unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility, because I am satisfied that a fact that is substantially material to the opinion of an expert witness is so in dispute that it would be unsafe to make such decision and that section 269(1) is engaged in the present case.

1. All the expert reports point to fitness for trial and accordingly the proceeding is to continue according to law.  I grant leave to the parties to use the experts' reports received in evidence by this Court for any further proceedings.