Re Reuben

[2008] QMHC 8

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Reuben [2008] QMHC 008

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF MAE REUBEN

PROCEEDING:

No 273 of 2007

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 May 2008

JUDGE:

Dutney J

ASSISTING
 PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J Lawrence
Dr E McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1.   The defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the index offences;

2.   A forensic order made requiring the defendant's detention to The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service. 

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with one count of murder and one count of arson – where reporting psychiatrists agree that defendant was unsound of the mind at the time of the commission of the offences – whether a forensic order should be made – whether a limited community treatment order should be made

COUNSEL:

Ms K Prskalo for the defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
Mr S Vasta for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

1. JDUTNEY:  The defendant is charged with one count of murder and one count of arson.  The deceased was a 73 year old woman.

1. On the 27^th of April 2007 the defendant was residing as a boarder in the deceased's house.  She had been asked to leave the premises a few days before as a result of unpaid rent.  On the day of the offences the defendant poured a five litre container of petrol over the deceased and lit it with a cigarette lighter.  The deceased was burnt to death and the house badly damaged.

1. Horrific though this crime was the only issues this Court has jurisdiction to consider are whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offences and, if so, what order should be made for the treatment of her mental illness and her own and the community's protection.

1. If the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time the only matters that fall for determination in these proceedings are whether she is currently fit for trial and if unfit whether that unfitness is temporary or permanent.  Under our criminal law a person is not criminally responsible for an act, including an act which constitutes murder or arson, if at the time of doing the act or making the admission the person is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive the person of capacity to understand what the person is doing, or of capacity to control the person's actions, or of capacity to know that the person ought not to do the act.

1. In other words, the defendant is not held responsible even for murder unless at the relevant time she understood the nature of what she was doing, had the capacity to choose whether or not to do it and was capable of knowing that she ought not to do it.

1. The defendant here has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.  On the basis of the psychiatric evidence she had been suffering from this illness untreated for at least five years before she committed the index offences, possibly for as long as 10 years.

1. In his report prepared pursuant to section 238 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) and dated the 5th of November 2007 Dr Neillie summarises his opinion at page 14 as follows:

   
   
   

   "Prior to the alleged offences the defendant has described experiencing symptoms which I believe would be consistent with a psychotic illness. There is a clinical picture of persecutory delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations. Although based primarily on self-reported information in my opinion I believe that at the material time the defendant was experiencing symptoms of a mental disease, namely paranoid schizophrenia. She has described persecutory delusions from which self-report involved the victim of the alleged offence and auditory hallucinations with derogatory content as well as being command in nature. Although the defendant is alleged to have made comments to witnesses such as, 'I want to go to gaol, I have no food.', and 'I murdered her, take me to gaol.', one of the witness statements alleges the defendant had to be helped out of the house by a neighbour who smashed a window of a back bedroom. This neighbour noted, 'She seemed a bit reluctant to get out. In my opinion on the balance of probabilities the defendant was in such a state of mental disease as to deprive her of the capacity to know that she ought not do the act or make the admission as defined under section 27 of the Criminal Code. From self-report the degree of her psychotic symptoms was increasing prior to the alleged offences. The defendant has described believing that her life was in danger. She has described beliefs that she was being stalked and was going to be kidnapped and killed. In light of these symptoms I believe that in relation to the defendant's actions at the material time she would have been unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure."

1. The opinion that the defendant was of unsound mind lacking one of the capacities to which I've referred is consistent with the opinions expressed by Drs van de Hoef and Reddan in reports respectively dated the 17^th of March 2008 and the 30^th of April 2008, although there is not complete uniformity as to which capacity was absent.  No contrary opinion has been expressed either by any reporting psychiatrist or by those assisting me.  At pages 8 and 9 of her report Dr van de Hoef states:

   
   
   

   "In my opinion the defendant suffers from a severe psychotic illness, namely schizophrenia, which may have had its prodrome as early as the age of 17 years and has been present at least six years but may be as long as 10 years.  Considering all the available material I think it likely she has had almost relentless symptoms of psychosis (disorganized thought, altered mood states, anxiety, delusional thinking and hallucinations) in that time and these symptoms were active at the time of the alleged offences settling only after treatment in custody and high secure.  Her illness had been untreated prior to that.  I agree with Dr Neillie that she may also have a personality disorder of the borderline type but that it is also possible personality disturbance may have emerged as a prodrome of schizophrenia. In my opinion at the time of the alleged offences the defendant suffered from a disease of the mind, namely schizophrenia.  This illness was already chronic (present for probably for at least 5 and up to more than 10 years) untreated and was characterised by delusions and auditory hallucinations which compelled her to believe she had to burn the house to go to gaol where the voices told her she belonged.  She clearly knew the nature of the acts at the time telling emergency services and her rescuers she had lit the fire and killed someone.  She told the police on the day she had bought the petrol in advance with murder to go to gaol in mind.  I think this disease of the mind deprived her of the capacity to know she ought not to do the act.  I therefore support a finding of unsoundness of mind."

1. Dr Reddan at page 12 of her report expresses her findings this way:

   
   
   

   “The defendant self-report and the accompanying material suggests that she had suffered from a psychotic illness, probably schizophrenia of paranoid subtype, for approximately 5 years or more prior to the alleged offences. It is likely that for a few years during her 20's the defendant was manifesting a slow prodrome to the illness. It's likely that at the time of the alleged offences of arson and murder the defendant was suffering from a mental disease, namely psychotic symptoms arising from schizophrenia, which was such as to deprive her of the capacity to know that she ought not do the acts of arson and murder. Thus I would recommend to the Mental Health Court that the defendant has a defence of unsoundness of mind as per section 27 Queensland Criminal Code to the offences of arson and murder."

1. On the basis of the evidence before me and having regard to the advice I have received from those assisting me, I am satisfied that at the relevant time the defendant was of unsound mind within the meaning of section 27 of the Criminal Code.

1. Having regard to the brutal way in which the deceased was killed the making of a forensic order is inevitable.  It also seems to me that having regard to the need to protect the community limited community treatment should not be contemplated at this time.

1. I have read the victim impact statement provided by the deceased's daughter.  It is an insightful and balanced document which recognises the difficulty of dealing with the mentally ill in a civilised society.  While it is of little comfort having regard to what's happened I hope the deceased's family can accept an outcome which provides, as best our criminal justice and mental health systems are able to provide, treatment for the defendant and protection for the community.

1. Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the index offences.  I make a forensic order requiring the defendant's detention to The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service.  I make no order in relation to limited community treatment.

1. I raised with counsel the possibility of the deceased's family reading the reports which have been provided to the Court so as to better understand the reasons the psychiatrists came to their opinions.  For reasons given by the psychiatrists who authored the reports I am satisfied that that is not an appropriate course to adopt on this occasion.  It seems to me that I should leave it to the Director of Public Prosecutions office to explain in the way in which they ordinarily would how it is that those opinions have been arrived at.

1. I direct a transcript of these proceedings be available to the parties.