Re MPV
[2003] QMHC 18
•21 July 2003
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION:
Re MPV [2003] QMHC 018
PARTIES:
REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF MPV
PROCEEDING NO:
0202 of 2002
DELIVERED ON:
21 July 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
30 June 2003
JUDGE:
Wilson J
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:
Dr D A Grant
Dr J F WoodFINDINGS AND ORDERS:
1. Finding that at the time of the alleged offences, the defendant was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld);
2. Finding that the defendant is presently unfit for trial, and that the unfitness is not of a permanent nature;
3. Order that the defendant be detained as a forensic patient in the Logan Beaudesert District Authorised Mental Health Service for involuntary treatment and care;
4. Approval of limited community treatment (to commence immediately) on the following conditions:
(a) that the defendant reside at a place approved in advance in writing by the authorised psychiatrist;
(b) that the defendant attend all follow up appointments and in patient care as required by the authorised psychiatrist;
(c) that the defendant comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication and other treatment;
(d) that the defendant refrain from using alcohol and illicit drugs and co-operate fully in random medical tests for those substances as required by the authorised psychiatrist;
(e) that the defendant not drive a motor vehicle unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist;
5. Direction that a complete copy of the transcript of these proceedings be made available to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for use in reviewing the forensic order and approval for limited community treatment.
CATCHWORDS:
MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged with two counts of serious assault of a police officer, one count of obstructing police, one count of assaulting a police officer and one count of wilful damage – where defendant suffers from a psychotic illness – where not possible to construct complete chronology of defendant’s recent history – where about 16 months elapsed between alleged offences and defendant’s first admission to hospital – where conflicting expert evidence – whether the defendant was deprived of any capacity in s 27 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant’s fitness for trial has fluctuated – where defendant has distorted view of legal proceedings – where defendant has poverty of thought and speech – whether defendant is fit for trial
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 27
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2, s 288(1)(c)Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230, cited.
COUNSEL:
M Nicolson for the Attorney-General
J Farmer for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental HealthSOLICITORS:
The Director of Public Prosecutions for the Attorney-General
Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health
WILSON J: MPV [“the defendant”] has been charged with two counts of serious assault of a police officer, one count of obstructing police, one count of assaulting a police officer and one count of wilful damage, all allegedly committed on 15 October 2000. He was also charged with failing to appear on 2 April 2001, but proceedings in relation to that charge have been discontinued.
The matter of his mental condition in relation to the offences was referred to this Court by the Attorney-General.
The defendant was born on 8 July 1968. He suffers from a disease of the mind, which may be a form of schizophrenia or the early stages of Huntington’s disease. There is a family history of Huntington’s disease, but he has refused the genetic testing which is the only way of establishing whether he is afflicted with the disease. For present purposes it is sufficient that he suffers from a psychotic illness. The issue is whether at the relevant time he was deprived by his illness of one or more of the capacities referred to in s 27 of the Criminal Code – namely the capacity to understand what he was doing, the capacity to control his actions and the capacity to know that he ought not do the act.
In the fourteen years from 1985 the defendant was convicted of a number of offences including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing, wilful and unlawful damage to property, marijuana offences, and assaults occasioning bodily harm. At various times up to December 1999 fines were imposed. In March 2000 the Cairns District Court found him not guilty of assaults occasioning bodily harm allegedly committed in December 1997, and the prosecution entered nolles in relation to charges of housebreaking and stealing, wilful damage and assault occasioning bodily harm.
On Sunday 15 October 2000 a vehicle in which the defendant and others were travelling was stopped by police in MacGregor for the purpose of a random breath test. As a result of routine checks the police discovered that the defendant was the subject of an outstanding warrant for unpaid fines and arrested him. The defendant argued against accompanying the police officers to the local station, saying he would attend on Monday. Twice he told the police officers to take care of their bills and he would take care of his. The two counts of serious assault of a police officer relate to the defendant’s conduct when he was forcibly removed from the vehicle: it is alleged that he grabbed the neck and bit the arm of one officer and that he kicked a second officer once in the face and once in the shoulder. He is alleged to have assaulted a third officer by kneeing her in the chin area, causing her to fall. When he was in the watchhouse at Holland Park he allegedly tore a piece of cloth from a pillow and used it to cover the lens of video equipment in his cell.
It has not been possible to construct a complete chronology of the defendant’s life after his arrest. He was granted bail. There was a committal hearing with respect to the two indictable offences (two counts of serious assault of a police officer) on 31 January 2001, at the conclusion of which he was committed for trial in the District Court and again granted bail. The proceedings for the other charges were to continue in the Magistrates Court at Holland Park. On 2 April 2001 he failed to appear in the Magistrates Court and a warrant for his arrest was issued. He was apprehended on 16 March 2002. He spent some time in the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, and was transferred to the Logan Hospital on 28 March 2002 after a psychotic episode. He remained in hospital until 24 April 2002, and on his discharge was returned to prison. It seems that he must subsequently have been granted bail again, since on 24 September 2002 he presented at the Emergency Department of the Logan Hospital, saying that he was expected in Court that day. On 7 November 2002 he presented at the Beenleigh Police Station to explain his failure to appear in Court. He seems to have gone back into prison at about that time, and on 25 November 2002 he was transferred from the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre to the Logan Hospital after another psychotic episode. From February 2003 he was given intermittent leave from the hospital to live in the community. On 13 June 2003 he was readmitted to the Logan Hospital after losing his job at an abattoir.
The defendant was admitted to the Logan Hospital on 28 March 2002 with a history of recent bizarre thoughts that police had been bugging his phone and sending him text messages on his phone. He was reportedly afraid police would kidnap or murder him, and he suspected that they had murdered his brother in consequence of their malicious intent towards him. He had a history of overvalued ideas about police interest in his affairs, which should be seen against the background of his criminal record. Further, he had a history of personality dysfunction, antisocial behaviour and itinerancy. He had had a brief admission to the Logan Hospital in July 1997 when he had been diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. He had a history of binge drinking and marijuana use. The defendant’s treatment with anti-psychotic medication had commenced in the jail and was continued in the hospital.
In November 2002 the defendant was readmitted to the Logan Hospital after another psychotic episode. He had been unco-operative with psychiatric follow-up in the meantime. He was quite preoccupied with his charges and court appearances. There seemed to be confusion with the matters he had previously been involved with in Cairns. He complained at the involvement of two courts - presumably a reference to his having been committed for trial in the District Court on the indictable offences and still facing trial in a Magistrates Court for the simple offences. He had ongoing persecutory ideas and ideas of harassment by police in jail. He said he was entitled to $100,000 compensation from the police for lost earnings during the two years he had been unable to work because of the proceedings in Cairns.
Dr Murray Walters was the defendant’s treating psychiatrist each time he was admitted to the Logan Hospital. He observed in oral evidence that the defendant’s condition had fluctuated, and that it was very difficult to understand what the evolution of his symptoms might have been. Ultimately he expressed the opinion that even if, at the time of the alleged offences, the defendant held beliefs about police involvement in his affairs which were delusional in character rather than merely overvalued beliefs, and even given his rigidity of thinking and ruminative style of thinking, he was not deprived of any relevant capacity. At most his capacities to understand what he was doing and to know that he ought not behave in that way were impaired.
Dr Rodney Marsh, another psychiatrist, examined the defendant on 22 May 2003. He placed considerable emphasis on the defendant’s belief that he was owed money by the police for their treatment of him in Cairns, and that he had taken steps towards recovering it, even placing almost $5,000 in the trust account of solicitors who were to institute proceedings on his behalf. He considered the defendant’s beliefs to be delusional, and that he was deprived of the capacities to understand what he was doing and to know that he ought not do the acts in question.
It was difficult for the examining psychiatrists to form views upon the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged offences. About 16 months elapsed between those alleged offences and his first admission to hospital. Treatment was commenced by the prison psychiatrist before his transfer to hospital. His condition fluctuated quickly and markedly, and has continued to do so. From the summary of his criminal history which is before the Court it seems that about three years passed between the alleged offences in Cairns and his being cleared of the charges. Anger and resentment are understandable in the circumstances. I think that the opinions of Dr Walters who has been the defendant’s treating psychiatrist on his three admissions to hospital over the last 15 months are to be preferred to those of Dr Marsh, who saw him only once at a time when his symptoms seem to have been in remission. I am unpersuaded that at the time of the alleged offences he was deprived of any of the relevant capacities.
Accordingly I find that at the time of the alleged offences the defendant was not of unsound mind as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000.
As the defendant’s condition has fluctuated, so, too, has his fitness for trial. See the definition in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 and see Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230 at 245. Dr Marsh considered that he was unfit for trial when he examined him on 22 May this year. Subsequently he was readmitted to hospital after losing his job. Despite his readmission Dr Walters thought that his condition had improved sufficiently for him to be fit for trial. He said in a report –
“His condition has tended to fluctuate but there is a consistent view that his frank psychotic symptoms are in remission. That is, he does not fear for his safety and says that he does not feel harassed by the police in the same way he believed when he was frankly psychotic. He does generally feel that police harass him and treat him unjustly but not in a specifically delusional way. He still has a poverty of thought and speech and tends to have a ruminative and inflexible thinking style. He is not entirely preoccupied with a distorted misrepresentation of his legal matters as has been the case in the past and wants these sorted out in one way or another. He has received a higher dose of Flupenthixol (40mg) and this produced marked evidence of psychomotor slowing and akathisia.”
In oral evidence, in response to questioning by Dr Wood, one of the assisting psychiatrists, he said that it was a difficult opinion to arrive at, but that he considered his mind had cleared to a sufficient degree for him to be fit for trial.
Dr Walters was unable to assist the Court with evidence about the defendant’s mental condition in the two weeks between his last report and the hearing. At most his fitness for trial on 13 June 2003 was very marginal, and as Dr Wood observed, he is very vulnerable; his condition can fluctuate very quickly; he is very disturbed. In the circumstances I am not persuaded that the defendant would presently be able to understand the substantial effect of evidence that might be given in support of the prosecution or to instruct his legal representative in the defence of the charges.
I find that the defendant is presently unfit for trial. I am not satisfied that the unfitness is of a permanent nature.
The Court is obliged to make a forensic order: s 288(1)(c) Mental Health Act 2000. I order that the defendant be detained as a forensic patient in the Logan Beaudesert District Authorised Mental Health Service for involuntary treatment and care. I approve limited community treatment (to commence immediately) on the following conditions:
1. that he reside at a place approved in advance in writing by the authorised psychiatrist;
2. that he attend all follow up appointments and in patient care as required by the authorised psychiatrist;
3. that he comply with the requirements of the authorised psychiatrist in relation to the taking of prescribed medication and other treatment;
4. that he refrain from using alcohol and illicit drugs and co-operate fully in random medical tests for those substances as required by the authorised psychiatrist; and
5. that he not drive a motor vehicle unless permitted to do so by the authorised psychiatrist.
I direct that a complete copy of the transcript of these proceedings be made available to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for use in reviewing the forensic order and approval for limited community treatment.
0