Re O'Neill

[2010] QMHC 13

MENTAL HEALTH COURT   

CITATION:

Re O’Neill [2010] QMHC 13

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF DESMOND FRANCIS O’NEILL

PROCEEDING NO:

No 0246 of 2008

DELIVERED ON:

22, 30 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2009, 22 April 2010

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr E N McVie

Dr G Byrne

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1. That the defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences;

2.    That the defendant be detained as a forensic patient in the Prince Charles Authorised Mental Health Service;

3.    That limited community treatment be approved to commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrists on the conditions contained in the submission from the Director of Mental Health.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with burglary, two counts of common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, malicious act with intent and wilful damage – where defendant was deprived of a relevant capacity – where defendant suffered from a delusional disorder – whether defendant’s belief system represented overvalued ideas or were delusional – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

K Prskalo for the Defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

BG Campbell 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)

PHILIPPIDES J:

Background

1. The defendant, Desmond Francis O’Neill, is charged with burglary, two counts of common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, malicious act with intent and wilful damage on 10 January 2005.  The issue of the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged offences have been referred to this Court.

Personal background

1. The defendant is 62 years of age.  He has no prior criminal history.  He worked as a public servant until 1998, working with the State Government Insurance Office for some 16 years and then at the Office of State Revenue for the following 12 years.  He ceased working in 1998, due to emotional and psychological difficulties following his concerns about and involvement in the Heiner Inquiry and other matters.  He has been on a disability support pension from 2004. 

1. The defendant’s difficulties appear to have commenced in 1990 while he was an Executive Member of Queensland State Service Union during the time of the process of amalgamation with Public Sectors Officers Association (PSOA). He alleged mismanagement of the PSOA superannuation funds and corruption.  According to the defendant, he relayed his concerns to the Cooke Inquiry, which examined the evidence in relation to union impropriety, and the Heiner Inquiry into alleged shredding of confidential government documents. 

1. The defendant claims that he disclosed potentially damaging information against a range of prominent government officials.  During his investigations, the defendant claims that he discovered information indicating that there was a wider network of corruption within the government and media.  In the early nineties, he pursued the matter and made several unsuccessful attempts to bring his concerns to the attention of the police and the Fraud Squad.  The defendant came to the conclusion that there was a network of powerful officials within the government and the judiciary who had been involved in paedophilia, and who prevented the alleged scandalous conduct and corruption from entering the public debate.

1. From 1998 until 2005 the defendant was under the care of Dr Bell, who diagnosed the defendant with a Chronic Adjustment Disorder with anxious mood. He prescribed a range of medications including Seroquel and antidepressants.  In a report of 29 July 1999, Dr Bell noted that the defendant had suffered cognitive dysfunction, with markedly reduced concentration, an inability to maintain focus, procrastination and some loss of short term memory.  He stated that the defendant’s thinking had often been paranoid and reported physical manifestations of anxiety including shaking hands, palpitations and muscle tension.  Dr Bell stated that the cause of the defendant’s condition was severe and unremitting stress over the past several years, emanating partly from his work and partly from his associated involvement in matters of high level political and administrative intrigue stemming from his work as a union delegate in the early 1990s.

1. Subsequently, Dr Bell diagnosed the defendant’s condition as Chronic Major Depressive Disorder and described the defendant as “totally preoccupied with the issue of political intrigue: often becomes very negative in thinking (to the extent of suicide)”.  The defendant was treated with antidepressant medication and supportive psychotherapy over some five years.  In a clinical report in 2007, Dr Bell diagnosed Dysthymic Disorder, with mild depressive symptoms and irritability, obsessive preoccupations, paranoid ideations, neuro-vegetative features and cognitive dysfunction.

The circumstances of the offences

1. As mentioned, the defendant ceased work in 1998.  He subsequently came into financial difficulties and then started a business venture with Mr Pack.  The defendant reported that he had invested a substantial amount of his life savings in an enterprise involving coin operated business machines.  He claimed that over a period of time he gave Mr Pack $100,000 in respect of the venture.  In 2004 the defendant provided Mr Pack with documents outlining what he thought was owed to him.  He came to the view that Mr Pack had deceived him.  The defendant’s financial position had become increasingly parlous and he contemplated suicide on a number of occasions. He threatened Mr Pack that he would go to the police.  During the weeks that preceded the events in question the defendant had experienced significant stresses and financial pressures. Prior to the assaults, the defendant had phoned Mr Pack twice in an abusive manner and had threatened to kill him.

1. The defendant does not dispute the facts concerning the offences as outlined in the police brief of evidence.  The events in question occurred at about 9.35 pm on 10 January 2005.  The defendant forced his way into the house of the two complainants, Mr Pack and his son, Lionell. The defendant gained entry by using a wooden baton to smash a locked sliding glass door.  Upon entering the house, the defendant chased Mr Pack into the lounge room and repeatedly struck him with the wooden baton, causing him serious injuries.  Other occupants of the house intervened.  The defendant pulled a sawn off rifle from his pants and discharged it, causing injury to Lionell.  The defendant was eventually disarmed and held until the police arrived.

1. When interviewed by police the defendant stated his purpose in confronting          Mr Pack was to scare him into returning his property and paying outstanding debts.  He stated that the rifle was meant to threaten Mr Pack, but also stated that he had reason to fear Mr Pack and that was why he had armed himself (he was afraid of the complainant’s son who was a body builder).  He made statements that he had intended to use the rifle on himself.  The defendant admitted to abusing Mr Pack over the phone prior to the incident.  He said, “I had enough. I wanted to scare him. I did not want to kill him, but I was contemplating killing myself”. 

Expert evidence

1. The court has had reports from Drs Beech and Kovacevic, as well as material from Dr Bell.  It has also heard evidence from Drs Beech and Kovacevic. 

Dr Beech’s evidence

1. Dr Beech provided two reports dated 28 September 2008 and 13 July 2009.  In his first report, Dr Beech noted that at the outset of the interview, the defendant insisted on relating the Heiner matter to him.  Dr Beech reported that the defendant was unable to move from this narrative and obdurately resisted attempts to come to the point.  The defendant reported that his investigations had led him to discover that there were a number of links between political figures, public sector employees and the media.   He said he raised his concerns with many people who initially seemed interested, but subsequently lost interest or passed him off to others, which he took as evidence that they had been “got at”.  He sent material to the Senate, which was eventually sent to the Fraud Squad, but came to nought.  The defendant pursued his concerns with various politicians, the Electoral Reform Commission, the Criminal Justice Commission, the Morris Inquiry and other agencies. 

1. The defendant reported that he had come to a firm conviction that there was a nest of paedophiles who acted to conspire to keep matters secret.  The defendant claimed that his inquiries had led him to believe that a number of people were involved including senior judicial officers and politicians, members of the police force, members of the Department of Public Prosecutions, senior legal figures and members of the media.  He reported that over time he became more fearful for his wellbeing because he considered he was compromising himself by attempting to bring to light the nefarious matters that linked many powerful people to a paedophile network.  The defendant took to carrying an old rifle he had found and cut down because he began to fear for his own safety and that of his family.

1. Dr Beech reported that what initially seemed to him to be the ventilation and catharsis of an aggrieved former public servant quickly shifted into an account resembling the overvalued ideas of a small section of the population that is convinced that there are government cover ups in general, the Heiner Inquiry and high level paedophilia networks specifically.  Dr Beech went on to state, however, that:

“…as the matter progressed [the defendant’s] fixed and unshakable and absolute conviction in the conspiracy, the ever widening purview that it encompassed, his insistence and persistence in attempting to bring it to light, his description of the anxiety with which he held for his own safety and the more personalised nature of his description of a retaliatory response, indicated to me that [the defendant’s] beliefs are a complex delusional system.”

1. Dr Beech concluded that the defendant was suffering from a delusional disorder which may have arisen in the context of his work as a public servant and which over time had broadened in its scope to extend to a conviction of a wide ranging conspiracy.  He considered it also likely that, during the course of his illness and during periods of distress at his circumstances, the defendant had been significantly depressed to the point of developing suicidal ideation, and that he had also expressed homicidal ideation. 

1. Dr Beech was of the view that the defendant did not consider that there were any options available but to confront Mr Pack himself.  The defendant reported to        Dr Beech that he went to the police about Mr Pack’s fraudulent activities and was passed onto the Fraud Squad.  He reported that when he met with the Fraud Squad officer he realised that it was the man to whom he had spoken about the Heiner matter and he realised that he would get no support from the police; they had been corrupt in the past and had been involved in covering up the earlier matters.            Dr Beech stated that the defendant “believed that they would at the very least be of no assistance to him” and “intimated that in fact there may have been much more to it than this”. 

1. Dr Beech opined that the defendant was, as a result of his mental illness, deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not act as he did.  Dr Beech’s clinical opinion was that the defendant “had reached the point where he felt that he had no recourse except to confront Mr Pack about the money that he was owed”, and that by that time “his delusional ideas made him feel that there was no point in going to the police or other agencies because of their involvement in a wider corruption”.  Under these circumstances, Dr Beech did not consider that the defendant would have been able to think with a moderate degree of sense and composure as he considered his options and the wrongness of his conduct.

1. Dr Beech provided a further report dated 13 July 2009 after having the benefit of reading Dr Kovacevic’s report.  He opined that the defendant’s distress and the strain experienced by him, as reported by Dr Bell, constituted more than an Adjustment Disorder.  Dr Beech considered that the defendant had a secondary depressive disorder.  While Dr Beech accepted that the defendant presented with many of the features of a “querulous litigant”, he remained firmly of the view that the defendant’s beliefs demonstrated a complex delusional belief system and that the defendant suffered and continued to suffer from a Delusional Disorder.  In this regard, he reiterated that the defendant’s beliefs:

“are entrenched and they were not shakeable when I interviewed him.  Further, if he is allowed to talk [his beliefs] expand to such an extent that I believe demonstrates that they represent a complex delusional belief system.  I believe that further evidence for this diagnosis of Delusional Disorder is the extent of his impairment since the mid 1990s so that he has been unable to work…the exploration of [the defendant’s] beliefs reveals more than a simple reaction to political intrigue but rather the paranoia of a deluded man.”

1. In relation to the issue of deprivation, Dr Beech accepted that there is no distinct relationship between these beliefs and the defendant’s grievance with Mr Pack, but stated: 

“It is my opinion however that at the time he would have been so distressed by his belief that he could not have considered any other options with any degree of any sense of composure as the average person would other than to confront Mr Pack.”

1. In oral evidence Dr Beech adhered to his opinion that the defendant’s delusion led the defendant to believe there was no recourse in his conflict with Mr Pack, other than to directly confront him and frighten him, which included the conduct in question.  He was thus of the view that the defendant was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not act as he did. 

Dr Kovacevic’s evidence

1. In his report of 23 February 2009, Dr Kovacevic stated that at the outset of his interview with the defendant he was able to prevent the defendant from immediately launching into a discussion relating to the Heiner Inquiry by obtaining his agreement as to the boundaries of the interview.  Even so, the defendant required constant guidance away from such matters.   

1. Dr Kovacevic opined that the defendant exhibited excessive preoccupations and overvalued ideas and reported that the defendant had indicated to him a plan to expose “corruption” and “destroy the system” by posting damaging information on his personal website.  After being questioned about the relevance of these matters to his current charges, the defendant stated that “everything should be combined together” because “it’s all related”.  The defendant stated that he was prepared to face any consequences in pursuit of his cause and that he did not care about the personal costs involved.  He accepted that it would be difficult to get through to people and that his credibility and even sanity might be questioned in the process.

1. Dr Kovacevic noted that the defendant reported that he had threatened Mr Pack with going to the police but had discovered that any investigation involving funds over $30,000 would be handled by the Fraud Squad.  He also found out that the person who was in charge of the Fraud Squad had the same surname (apparently a rare surname) as the person who led the previous investigation in 1994 in relation to the mismanagement of the PSOA superannuation fund, with which he had been involved.  He believed that the police would be biased against him.  

1. The defendant told Dr Kovacevic that the rule of law had broken down and that he had no trust in the judicial system and therefore had no option of going to the police, which in his view justified his actions.  He alleged that “many of the same people involved in the Heiner Affair still held prominent positions in the corrupt system which would have disadvantaged him significantly had he pursued his grievances against Mr Pack through legal avenues”. 

1. Dr Kovacevic described the defendant as a “querulous litigant”, who exhibited characteristic features of that condition, including a competency in legal matters and knowledge of legal terminology, a determination to succeed in seeking redress of past wrongs, a quality of being “driven” towards pursuing the cause, and a loss of sight of the original purpose of the whole legal process.   

1. However, Dr Kovacevic’s view differed from that of Dr Beech in that he opined that the defendant’s belief system was not delusional.  Dr Kovacevic based that conclusion on the factors listed in his report.  These included that the content of the defendant’s beliefs was not removed from what can be regarded as conceivable, the content of his beliefs was neither highly personal or idiosyncratic to the point of not being shared by at least a section of the population, the defendant exhibited no evidence of a formal thought disorder, his views were expressed as “beliefs” and not unshakable convictions whose certainty was beyond further inquiry or testing, and he produced no obviously delusional evidence in support of his beliefs.

1. Dr Kovacevic also opined that, even if it were accepted that the defendant’s beliefs were delusional, there was no direct link between them and the charged offences. He thus rejected the view that there was any relevant deprivation of capacity.  He noted that an argument “could be advanced that there is an indirect link based on the relation between [the defendant’s] supposed delusions and his decision not to go to the police because of the belief that the justice system was corrupted and the police force staffed by individuals of questionable integrity”.  But he considered that accepting such an argument was problematic. One of the matters raised by             Dr Kovacevic in this regard was that in the defendant’s police interview he gave as a reason for not pursuing a civil action against the complainant the latter’s lack of financial means, rather than a belief into some high level conspiracy.  Dr Kovacevic concluded:

“… in my opinion, when he assaulted Mr Pack [the defendant] had a capacity to know and appreciate that society at large considered his act to be wrong… Even if we suppose that he was deluded and that the facts have actually been as he delusionaly believed them to be, he would not have been justified in assaulting the alleged victim.  Further to this, [the defendant] appeared to have acted under the influence of the motives of revenge and anger. Notwithstanding his supposed pathological beliefs, he would have been expected to know and appreciate that society does not approve of vengeance and that he had violated public morality as well as the law.”

Conclusions and findings

1. In relation to the question of diagnosis, I prefer that of Dr Beech that the defendant suffers from Delusional Disorder and did so at the relevant time.  In my view,        Dr Beech was able to obtain a clearer understanding as to the defendant’s mental condition than Dr Kovacevic.  In this respect, I note that Dr Beech was able to obtain a much more extensive report as to the nature and extent of the defendant’s belief systems than Dr Kovacevic.  This was perhaps due to Dr Kovacevic’s approach to his examination of the defendant, which was to designate the boundaries of the interview and to cordon off discussion of matters relating to the Heiner Inquiry and related beliefs as to the conspiracy outlined in detail to             Dr Beech.  Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions recognised this in his submissions, in conceding that Dr Beech’s clinical assessment that the defendant suffered from a delusional disorder ought to be accepted.  That concession was premised on an acceptance that Dr Beech had been able to obtain a much more comprehensive picture of the defendant’s thinking in terms of his belief system. 

1. I do not consider that this is a case where a dispute arises in relation to the factual matters concerning the circumstances of the offence or expert opinions.  I note that there was some issue as to whether from the police interview it should be concluded that the defendant did not seek to report the matter to the police as he indicated to the psychiatrist.  However, when the matter was raised with Dr Beech, I note that he did not consider that it caused him to doubt his conclusion.  Moreover, the police interview is not necessarily inconsistent with information obtained from the psychiatrists, who because of their expertise were able to elicit more detailed information.  None of the reporting psychiatrists raised concerns with the background factual circumstances upon which there were called to offer their clinical opinions. 

1. The critical issue therefore concerns whether the defendant was, as a result of his delusional disorder, deprived of a relevant capacity.  I note that Dr Kovacevic was unable to conclude, as Dr Beech did, that there was a deprivation of the cognitive capacity.  Counsel for the defendant submitted that that was reflective, to some extent, of his primary position that the defendant’s belief system merely represented over-valued ideas rather than an entrenched and complex delusional belief system.  I note that Dr Kovacevic’s difficulty in concluding that there was a deprivation of capacity was largely because of what he saw was a lack of a specific connection between the defendant’s delusional thinking and Mr Pack (that is, that the complainant did not feature in the defendant’s delusional beliefs), and because in the police interview the defendant was able to offer some plausible reasons for not pursuing other options to redress his grievances. 

1. However, Dr Beech in my view persuasively demonstrated that, while the defendant did make passing references to some plausible reasons for not pursuing civil or criminal court avenues of redress, these were subsumed by his overarching delusional thinking which had extended to incorporate the legal and judicial system.  Also addressed comprehensively by Dr Beech was why he considered the defendant should be seen to have been deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the acts in question, notwithstanding that Mr Pack did not himself feature as a specific part of the defendant’s delusional thinking. 

1. I note that Dr Beech maintained his opinion as to deprivation notwithstanding close questioning.  While Dr Beech accepted that there was no direct link between          Mr Pack and the defendant’s delusions, he considered that there was a connection between the defendant’s delusional disorder and his acts resulting in the charges.  In this respect, Dr Beech persuasively explained that, at the time of the events in question, the defendant, due to his delusional thinking, believed that he had no other option open to him than to act as he did.  This belief was specific to his delusional ideas that the police, the Fraud Squad, and other government systems would not be of any assistance to him in pursuing what he believed he was entitled to, namely the money that Mr Pack allegedly owed him.  The defendant had incorporated the police and the criminal and civil justice systems into his delusional thinking as to what options were available to him in respect of his dispute with Mr Pack.             Dr Beech’s opinion was that the defendant’s delusional disorder had developed to such an extent that he was relevantly deprived. 

1. In recommending Dr Beech’s opinion, Dr McVie pointed out that the defendant’s ability to consider rationally the wrongfulness of his conduct needed to be viewed in the context of the history of the development of his delusions, as outlined in detail by Dr Beech.  This context included the development of delusions, which began with the defendant’s involvement in the Public Service Union and his association in the Heiner and Cooke inquiries, and had developed into a much broader delusional system with a conspiracy involving senior government officials and members of the judiciary, the media and ultimately a “nest of paedophiles”.  Dr McVie noted, as pertinent, the evidence that it also extended to a situation where the delusional beliefs had reached such a point that the defendant felt his life was in danger and that he needed to carry a sawn off rifle to protect himself from conspirators.  In commenting on the evidence, she also observed as relevant that, “even [the defendant’s] explanation [of] his motivation to scare the Packs into paying him back, does not seem particularly rational as he also said that he knew Pack was armed and thought that his sons might be there”.

1. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the defendant was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the acts in question as a result of his delusional disorder.  Accordingly, I find that the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time. 

1. Clearly, a forensic order is required bearing in mind the seriousness of the offences, the treatment needs of the defendant, and the need to protect the community.  The defendant’s conduct was extremely violent and troubling.  The clinical evidence is that he requires extensive long term treatment and the advice of Dr McVie is that such treatment include anti-psychotic medication.  A submission was provided by the Director of Mental Health for detention to the Prince Charles Authorised Mental Health Service with limited community treatment.  The advice of the assisting psychiatrists was that limited community treatment in accordance with the conditions of that submission was appropriate in terms of management of risk and in terms of treatment needs and accords with all of the clinical evidence.

1. In the circumstances, I order that the defendant be detained to the Prince Charles Authorised Mental Health Service.  I approve limited community treatment to commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the conditions contained in the submission from the Director of Mental Health.