Re PNA

[2010] QMHC 49

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re PNA [2010] QMHC 49

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN RESPECT OF PNA

PROCEEDING:

No 0035 of 2010

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3, 7 December 2010

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J M Lawrence

Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

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;
2. That the defendant is fit for trial; and

3.   That the proceedings are to continue according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF

MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with murder – where varying accounts given by defendant as to the events resulting in the death of the deceased – where date and varying reports given by defendant as to experiencing psychotic symptoms – where evidence defendant was intoxicated – whether dispute relating to substantially material facts

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

S Lynch for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

S Bain for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

PHILIPPIDES J:

1. The defendant is charged with the murder of her four-day-old daughter, on 7 April 2007.  The matter of the defendant's mental condition at the relevant time has been referred to this Court.

1. The circumstances relating to the charge have been the subject of varying accounts given by the defendant.  That has been a matter of concern which has been referred to by all of the doctors who provided a report to this Court.  There is evidence that the defendant had taken amphetamine on the day in question, that is borne out by a urine drug test and complicates the position in terms of the factual background in respect of determining the extent to which intoxication featured in the events in question.

1. But more importantly, the inconsistency in the evidence before the Court is such that each of the doctors indicated that the reliance that could be placed on the defendant's reported history of psychotic symptoms was put in question and there was also a concern in relation to exaggeration, elaboration and malingering of symptoms.  This concern was highlighted by the fact that Dr O'Rourke performed a mental health assessment soon after the events in question and was unable to find any psychotic or mood symptoms and indeed opined that there was no psychosis or other picture indicating a mental illness at the relevant time.

1. I note that the opinion of the reporters is, therefore, united in raising very serious concerns relating to substantially material matters to the formulation of an opinion in respect of the defendant's state of mind at the material time, in addition to issues of deprivation or substantial impairment of capacity.

1. At the end of hearing evidence, counsel for the defendant properly conceded that the united opinion did indicate that there was a dispute pursuant to section 269 of the Mental Health Act. That position is undoubtedly the case. Accordingly, I find that the facts are so in dispute that it would be unsafe for this Court to make a decision as to the defendant’s mental state at the relevant time.

1. The orders are:

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;

2.          That the defendant is fit for trial; and

3.          That the proceedings are to continue according to law.