Re Murray - [2014] QMHC 7

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Murray [2014] QMHC 7

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF ADAM JOHN MURRAY

FILE NO/S:

54 of 2013

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 July 2014, 16 July 2014

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr F T Varghese
Dr S Harden

ORDER:

At the time of the alleged offence, the subject of the amended reference, the defendant was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as defined in the Schedule to the Mental Health Act 2000;1.

At the time of the alleged offence, the subject of the amended reference, the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility;2.

The defendant is temporarily unfit for trial;3.

The defendant be detained, pursuant to a forensic order, in The Park High Security Authorised Mental Health Service;4.

There be no approved limited community treatment at this time;5.

Copies of the reports, and of the transcript, be provided to the parties, the treating team, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the Attorney-General.6.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF

MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged with murder – where the defendant had consumed amphetamines the evening before the alleged offence was committed – where the defendant was floridly psychotic and was deprived, a least, of the capacity to know he ought not do the act – where the reporting psychiatrists have differing opinions – where counsel for the defendant submits the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offense, or alternatively, the defendant is entitled to a defence of diminished responsibility – where the Director of Public Prosecutions submits the defendant is not entitled to a defence of unsound mind or diminished responsibility –whether the defendant’s deprivation resulted from intentional intoxication – whether the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility – whether the defendant is fit for trial

Criminal Code 1899, s 27, s 304A

R v Davis (1881) 14 Cox CC 563, cited
Re LIH [2002] QMHC 14, cited

R v Stapleton (1952) 86 CLR 358, cited

COUNSEL:

J Briggs for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

S Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health

Director of Public Prosecutions

BODDICE J: By amended reference filed 8 April 2013, Legal Aid Queensland referred to this Court the mental condition of Adam John Murray at the time of an alleged offence of murder on 2 May 2012. It is not in dispute that at the time of the alleged offence, the Defendant was floridly psychotic and deprived, at least, of the capacity to know he ought not do the act. At issue is whether deprivation resulted, to some extent, from intentional intoxication. Diminished responsibility and fitness for trial are also in issue.

Background

The Defendant is a 30 year old single unemployed man. He was born on 14 August…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Murray

Details

AGLC: Re Murray [2014] QMHC 7
Case: [2014] QMHC 7
Decision Date: 28 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Murray, the court was tasked with determining the mental health status of the defendant at the time of an alleged murder. The case involved conflicting psychiatric opinions and submissions regarding whether the defendant was of unsound mind or had diminished responsibility due to consuming amphetamines prior to the incident. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued against any defence of unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility, while counsel for the defendant maintained that either defence should be considered.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's mental state resulted from intentional intoxication, whether the defendant suffered from diminished responsibility, and whether the defendant was fit for trial. The court needed to examine the reports from the psychiatrists, who had differing views on the defendant's mental condition, and weigh the submissions from both parties. Additionally, the court had to decide on the defendant's fitness for trial and appropriate detention measures.

The court concluded that the defendant was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as defined in the Mental Health Act 2000 but did suffer from diminished responsibility at the time of the alleged offence. The court found that the defendant was temporarily unfit for trial and ordered that he be detained in a high-security authorised mental health service. There would be no approved limited community treatment at that time. The court also mandated that copies of the reports and the transcript be provided to various stakeholders, including the parties involved, the treating team, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the Attorney-General.

Orders

Orders of the court

At the time of the alleged offence, the subject of the amended reference, the defendant was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as defined in the Schedule to the Mental Health Act 2000;1.

At the time of the alleged offence, the subject of the amended reference, the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility;2.

The defendant is temporarily unfit for trial;3.

The defendant be detained, pursuant to a forensic order, in The Park High Security Authorised Mental Health Service;4.

There be no approved limited community treatment at this time;5.

Copies of the reports, and of the transcript, be provided to the parties, the treating team, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the Attorney-General.6.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Re Murray [2014] QMHC 7
PARTIES:	REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF ADAM JOHN MURRAY
FILE NO/S:	54 of 2013
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 July 2014, 16 July 2014
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:	Dr F T Varghese Dr S Harden
ORDER:	*At the time of the alleged offence, the subject of the amended reference, the defendant was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as defined in the Schedule to the Mental Health Act* 2000;1. At the time of the alleged offence, the subject of the amended reference, the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility;2. The defendant is temporarily unfit for trial;3. The defendant be detained, pursuant to a forensic order, in The Park High Security Authorised Mental Health Service;4. There be no approved limited community treatment at this time;5. Copies of the reports, and of the transcript, be provided to the parties, the treating team, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the Attorney-General.**6.
CATCHWORDS:	MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged with murder – where the defendant had consumed amphetamines the evening before the alleged offence was committed – where the defendant was floridly psychotic and was deprived, a least, of the capacity to know he ought not do the act – where the reporting psychiatrists have differing opinions – where counsel for the defendant submits the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offense, or alternatively, the defendant is entitled to a defence of diminished responsibility – where the Director of Public Prosecutions submits the defendant is not entitled to a defence of unsound mind or diminished responsibility –whether the defendant’s deprivation resulted from intentional intoxication – whether the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility – whether the defendant is fit for trial Criminal Code 1899, s 27, s 304A R v Davis (1881) 14 Cox CC 563, cited Re LIH [2002] QMHC 14, cited R v Stapleton (1952) 86 CLR 358, cited
COUNSEL:	J Briggs for the defendant J Tate for the Director of Mental Health S Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health Director of Public Prosecutions