Re PCL
[2003] QMHC 1
•31 January 2003
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION: | Re PCL [2003] QMHC 001 |
PARTIES: | REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF PCL |
PROCEEDING NO: | 0137/2002 |
DELIVERED ON: | 31 January 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 21, 22 January 2003 |
JUDGE: | Wilson J |
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: | Dr J M Lawrence |
FINDINGS AND ORDERS: | 1. Finding that when the alleged offences were committed, 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 fit for trial; 3. Order that the proceedings against the defendant for two counts of armed robbery with violence be continued according to law. |
CATCHWORDS: | MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged with two counts of armed robbery with violence – whether defendant of unsound mind at the time the alleged offences occurred – whether defendant suffered from major depressive order – where defendant was intoxicated with alcohol and benzodiazepines at the time the offence was committed – whether deprivation or substantial impairment of capacity – whether caused by mental illness – where conflicting expert psychiatric opinions given Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 27 |
COUNSEL: | B Devereaux for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant |
WILSON J:PCL has been charged with two counts of armed robbery with violence – on 2 May 2001 and on 3 May 2001.
The matter of his mental condition in relation to the alleged offences was referred to the Mental Health Tribunal by his legal representative on 18 February 2002. The reference was heard by the Mental Health Court on 21 and 22 January 2003.
At the conclusion of the hearing I found that at the time of the alleged offences he was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) and that he was fit for trial, and I ordered that the proceedings against him for the offences be continued according to law. These are my reasons for so finding and for the orders made.
The offences both involved armed hold ups of the same chemist shop. The defendant was known to the pharmacy and he made no attempt at disguise. In the first incident he was armed with a small hand gun and he demanded perfume. In the second incident he was armed with a hunting knife with a five inch blade; he demanded good perfumes and when told he had taken them all the previous day, took various toiletries and demanded “men’s stuff” and “ladies’ stuff”. His motivation for the offences was to be arrested and punished. He gave the examining doctors various reasons why he should be punished, including responsibility for the accidental death of his father many years before and the hurt that he had caused his family.
The defendant was born on 28 May 1957. He has a long history of abuse of alcohol and benzodiazepines. He has a history of depression with suicidal ideations. He had three admissions to hospital in the period leading up to these offences. The first admission was between 20 and 29 September 2000. On his discharge the principal diagnosis was of a major depressive episode with a differential diagnosis of substance induced mood disorder. There was a further diagnosis of polysubstance dependence on benzodiazepines and alcohol. The second admission was between 26 February 2001 and 16 March 2001. Then the principal diagnosis was depression in the context of a situational crisis and suicide attempts; there was also a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. The third admission was between 26 and 30 March 2001. No discharge summary is available to the Court, but it appears that he was admitted to hospital vomiting and then referred for psychiatric review because he was suicidal.
It is clear that at the time of the offences he was suffering from depression. There is dispute amongst the medical examiners as to whether he was suffering a major depressive disorder (which would be a mental illness within the meaning of the Mental Health Act) or a reactive depression (which would arguably not amount to such a mental illness). Doctors Petchkovski and Varghese considered he was suffering from a major depressive disorder while Dr Fama thought it was merely a reactive depression.
The diagnosis is not clear. At the times of his admissions to hospital there were intoxicating substances in his system and Dr Lawrence (one of the assisting psychiatrists) advised the Court that a diagnosis could not be made until those substances had been eliminated from his system. Further, the periods of hospitalisation were relatively short and Dr Fama considered that that rapid recovery was not indicative of major depressive disorder.
Even if he was suffering from a major depressive disorder, he was not of unsound mind within the meaning of the legislation unless he was deprived by that mental illness of at least one of the three capacities referred to in s 27 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (the capacity to understand what he was doing, the capacity to control his actions, and the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts in question). Moreover, if his state of mind resulted to any extent from involuntary intoxication, it would be outside the definition of “unsound mind”.
At the time of the alleged offences the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated with benzodiazepines and alcohol. He knew what he was doing. His capacity to control his actions may well have been impaired by the disinhibiting effects of the intoxicants, but it was not absent. His motivation for the crimes was indeed bizarre. In Dr Varghese’s opinion his cognitions were affected by the depression leading to an irrational understanding of what was right and wrong. Be that as it may, he had an understanding that what he was doing was wrong: that was the very reason he engaged in the conduct. I am not satisfied that he was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the acts, even if that capacity was impaired.
In Dr Fama’s opinion it was not possible to separate the effect of the intoxication from the depression. As I understood Dr Petchkovski’s evidence, the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offences resulted from a combination of depression and alcohol and benzodiazepines. Dr Varghese attempted to compartmentalise the effects of the depressive illness and the intoxication by saying that the intoxication impacted on his capacity of control and the depression impacted on his capacity to understand that he ought not do the act. However, even Dr Varghese conceded that the intoxication would have exacerbated his depression.
I am satisfied that the depression and the intoxication were inextricably entwined. Alcohol and benzodiazepines can themselves lead to depression. Further they can exacerbate a depression that is already there. This was the advice of the two assisting psychiatrists, which was consistent with the evidence of the three examining doctors, and which I accept.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the alleged offences the defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000. On the evidence he is fit for trial.
0
0
2