Re REC

[2005] QMHC 12

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re REC [2005] MHC 012

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF REC

PROCEEDING NO:

0192 of 2004

DELIVERED ON:

28 July 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2005

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Holmes J

Dr J F Wood
Dr D A Grant

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

At the time the offences were committed the defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)1.   

The defendant is to be detained as a forensic patient at The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service for involuntary treatment and care2.   

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged with torture and attempted murder – where the defendant suffered in the past from schizofreniform disorder – where defendant had expressed delusional ideas – whether defendant of unsound mind at the time the alleged offence occurred – whether defendant deprived of one or more of the capacities in s 27 of the Criminal Code

Criminal Code (Qld), s 27

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 426(2), schedule 2

COUNSEL:

Ms C Morgan for the defendant
Mr W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health

Mr M Byrne for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health

The Director of Public Prosecutions

1. :HOLMES J 

   REC is charged with torture and attempted murder allegedly committed on 16 October, 2004.  The events of the night in question are set out in a statement of her husband.  He explains, in essence, that

   
   

   REC had been unwell.  On that night he found her in the room of their 10-month-old baby holding the child down with her left hand on the child’s chest and spraying something called "Electronic terminal cleaner" into the child's face.  There was a scuffle.  Subsequently REC was seen by him to stab at the baby with a bread knife.  Fortunately, because the knife had a rounded end, it does not seem to have done significant damage to the child. 

1. Just that day REC had made statements to him and to his mother which were clearly indicative of delusion.  And I should say that REC had a history of admission to the Mackay Hospital where she had been diagnosed as suffering from schizophreniform disorder.  She gave accounts on various admissions there of delusions which centred around thinking that family members and her partner were impostors.

1. It seems that on the night in question she was suffering under a similar delusion, that her husband and child had been murdered and replaced and that those that she were seeing were impostors.  There is agreement amongst the psychiatrists that she suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid-type, and that she was deprived, at the very least, of the capacity to know that she ought not to do the actions in question.

1. I am satisfied that REC was of unsound mind pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2000, schedule 2 at the time the acts underlying the charges were committed. I am satisfied that a forensic order is necessary.

   
   

   I order that she be detained to the Park High security program authorised mental health service. 

1. I have received a document from Mr C, REC’s husband.  The Crown submits that a non-contact order should be made in respect of both Mr C and the child. 

   
   

   It seems to me, for a number of reasons, that such an order, which is desired as part of the forensic order, is neither necessary nor appropriate in this case.  It is entirely improbable that REC will be resident with her husband or the child in the foreseeable future. 

1. It may, on the other hand, be desirable that she does have at least supervised access with the child from time to time, although that of course will be a matter for those treating her and possibly the subject of a Family Court order in due course.  I do note that Dr Stanganelli, in November, 2004, thought it appropriate that supervised access occur and there is no contrary opinion, at any rate, at this time.

1. It is also of importance that the question of custody will be before the Family Court in the near future. That Court can be expected to reach a conclusion as to the appropriate arrangements probably on a broader set of information than that which is before me.  In those circumstances I do not think it appropriate at this stage to make an order of the type proposed.

1. There was an application for a confidentiality order in respect of the document from Mr C. I cannot achieve the state of satisfaction referred to in s 426(2) of the Mental Health Act 2000, certainly not to the standard of being satisfied the disclosure would cause the type of harm spoken of in that section. It seems to me, though, that there are reasons it is undesirable that the documents be at large in any sense.

1. I will order that one copy of the statement be placed in a sealed envelope marked, "Not to be opened without the order of a Judge" and placed on the Mental Health Court file and I order that it not be opened except by such order.