Re Reid

[2007] QMHC 30

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Reid [2007] QMHC 30

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF ALFRED AARON REID

PROCEEDING:

No 246 of 2006

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr Wood
Dr Lawrence

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. At the time of the alleged offences, the defendant was not of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)

2.   The defendant is fit for trial

3.   Proceedings against the defendant are to be continued according to law

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with robbery with actual violence and driving without a license –whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the offences – whether defendant was intoxicated at the time of the offences – where difference of opinion between expert witnesses

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

Mr J Farmer for the defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
Mr A Lossberg 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)

* Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed (Reid v DPP (Qld) & Anor [2008] QCA 123)

* Special leave to appeal to High Court refused

1. PHILIPPIDES J:  Alfred Aaron Reid is charged with robbery with actual violence whilst armed and driving without a licence, both on 20 August 2006.

1. The question of the defendant's mental condition at the relevant time has been referred to this Court.  The matter was adjourned when it was previously before the Court so that a further report could be obtained.  That report from Dr Kovacevic is now before the Court.

1. The other medical reports, other than the last report the Court has received, do not support a finding of unsoundness.  Dr Kovacevic, however, in his report indicates that he would support a finding of unsoundness.

1. There are two matters which the assisting psychiatrists have identified as being problematical.  The first relates to the question of intoxication.  It is raised in the material and Dr Kovacevic appears to accept that it is relevant in relation to the blackouts but maintains that given the symptoms of psychosis which relate to the period prior to the alleged offending and evidence of psychosis subsequently when the defendant was in custody that intoxication may be excluded as playing a role.

1. I am unable to be satisfied on the material before the Court that intoxication should be excluded but, in addition, I note that Dr Kovacevic records in his report that "reaching an opinion on the defendant's capacities is very difficult due to the defendant's complete amnesia for the relevant event". 

1. The doctor goes on to express the view that establishing the exact mental state at the time of committing the act is "almost an impossible task".  Nevertheless, he opines that the defendant was probably deprived of one of the relevant capacities.  This view is at odds with the other clinical opinion before the Court.

1. In the circumstances, I am unable to be satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences.

1. I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind.  The defendant is fit for trial.  The proceedings will continue according to law.

1. I grant leave to the parties to use the medical reports before the Court in further proceedings.