Re RKS
[2004] QMHC 11
•23 July 2004 (decision) 3 September 2004 (reasons)
MENTAL HEALTH COURT
CITATION: | Re RKS [2004] QMHC 011 |
PARTIES: | REFERENCE BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF RKS |
PROCEEDING NO: | 0169 of 2003 |
DELIVERED ON: | 23 July 2004 (decision) 3 September 2004 (reasons) |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 23 July 2004 |
JUDGE: | Wilson J |
ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: | Dr DA Grant |
FINDINGS AND ORDERS: | 1. Finding that the defendant was of unsound mind, as described in schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000, at the time of the alleged offence; 2. Order that the defendant be detained as a forensic patient in The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service for involuntary treatment and care; 3. Approval of Limited Community Treatment in the nature of escorted leave on the grounds of the hospital, at the discretion of the authorised psychiatrist, on the following conditions: (i) that the defendant remain under the escort of a health service staff member or members nominated by the authorised psychiatrist for the duration of the limited community treatment; and (ii) that for the purposes of the limited community treatment the defendant comply with the directions of the nominated staff member or members for its duration. |
CATCHWORDS: | MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with attempted murder – where defendant had history of schizophrenia – where defendant experienced delusion and command hallucination– where defendant had consumed alcohol prior to alleged offence – whether intoxication contributed to state of mind – where delusion deprived him of capacity to know he ought not do the act – where intoxication would not have had any effect on deprivation of capacity resulting from delusion –where capacity for control impaired – where hallucination a cause of impairment of capacity for control – where intoxication would have been another cause of impairment of capacity for control – whether defendant of unsound mind Criminal Code Act 1899 s 27 Re LIH [2002] QMHC 013, applied |
COUNSEL: | J Devereaux for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant |
WILSON J: The defendant was charged with attempted murder, alternatively striking with a hammer with intent to do grievous bodily harm, alternatively assault causing bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation. At the conclusion of the hearing, I found that he had been of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence, and made a forensic order with provision for limited community treatment. What follow are my reasons for so doing.
The defendant was born on 11 January 1967. He has a long history of schizophrenia.
The offence allegedly occurred on 31 March 2002 at about 5.45 pm. The defendant, a Caucasian, lived with his mother and stepfather in a unit at Labrador. In the morning they had gone out to visit a relative. On the way home, he was inclined to fall asleep in the car. When his stepfather commented that he looked "half pissed", he asserted that he was in fact "fully pissed". He repeated that assertion when they arrived home, and went and had a sleep. He got up about 2.15 pm and went out to the local bottle shop. He returned about 3.00 pm. The complainant, an Aboriginal woman who was his brother's ex-girlfriend, arrived about 3.30 pm. The group sat on the verandah drinking. However, it is not possible to determine how much the defendant consumed, or whether he was intoxicated by the time of the alleged offence.
The defendant and his mother and stepfather welcomed the complainant. Subsequently the defendant and his stepfather sat in the living room, and the complainant and his mother at the dining table in a recess off the kitchen. According to the complainant, the defendant was "just sitting there daydreaming."
The defendant suffered from a longstanding bizarre delusion that a black woman had attacked him in his dreams and caused damage to his skull. On the afternoon of the alleged offence, the delusion was triggered by his seeing the complainant's hands, and he became "aware" that she was the person who had been attacking him. At the same time he had a command hallucination: voices were telling him to go and hit this Aboriginal woman with a hammer. He went out to the garden shed and fetched a hammer. The complainant described him on his return into the unit thus -
“He looked like a soldier going into battle....I didn't even notice the hammer at that stage. By the time it registered with me, he had already hit me with the hammer a couple of times. He hit me to the top of the head. As he was hitting me I heard him saying something like 'black, black'.”
His mother said he was calling her a "black bitch", while his stepfather said he was saying, "She's a black cunt." Struck by repeated blows, the complainant fell to the floor; he continued to strike her with the hammer despite her trying to fend him off with her arms, declaring "I'll kill the fucking black cunt."
Was the defendant of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence? In the Dictionary in Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 2000 the following appears:
“‘unsound mind’ means the state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity described in the Criminal Code, section 27, but does not include a state of mind resulting, to any extent, from intentional intoxication or stupefaction alone or in combination with some other agent at or about the time of the alleged offence.”
Section 27 of the Criminal Code provides:
“27. Insanity
(1)A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission 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 or make the omission.
(2)A person whose mind, at the time of the person’s doing or omitting to do an act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of subsection (1), is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as the person was induced by the delusions to believe to exist.”
The Court had to determine whether the defendant was deprived of one of the capacities by a mental disease, and if so, whether that state of mind resulted to any extent from intentional intoxication.
On the evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the delusion (which was a manifestation of the defendant's schizophrenia) deprived him of one of the cognitive capacities, namely the capacity to know he ought not strike the complainant. Further, I am satisfied that even if he were intoxicated with alcohol, that intoxication would not have had any effect on his delusion or on the deprivation of capacity which resulted from it.
The defendant’s capacity for volitional control was at least impaired. The command hallucination, which was also a manifestation of his schizophrenia, was a cause of the impairment of that capacity If he were intoxicated, the intoxication would have been another cause of the impairment of that capacity.
In Re LIH [2002] QMHC 013 I said -
“[14]The ‘state of mind’ referred to in the second part of the definition of ‘unsound mind’ (beginning ‘but does not include...’) is a description of absence of capacity caused by mental disease. This part of the definition recognises that there may be more than one cause of a deprivation of capacity. The other cause (or causes) may be intentional intoxication or something else. If intentional intoxication plays any role in bringing about the deprivation, the state of mind does not amount to ‘unsoundness of mind’: that is what is meant by the words ‘resulting, to any extent, from..’.
[15]Mental illness may deprive someone of one of the capacities. Another capacity may be adversely affected by mental illness or by intoxication or by a combination of mental illness and intoxication (whether or not the intoxication is combined with some third factor). The extent (whether deprivation or mere impairment) and the cause or causes of the adverse effect on the second capacity cannot derogate from a finding of unsoundness of mind based on the deprivation of the first capacity.”
The application of similar reasoning to this case led me to conclude that the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence.
Having regard to the seriousness of the charges, his obvious need for treatment and the grave need to protect the public, I ordered that he be detained as a forensic patient in The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service for involuntary treatment and care. I approved limited community treatment in the nature of escorted leave on the grounds of the hospital, at the discretion of the authorised psychiatrist, on the following conditions:
(i)that he remain under the escort of a health service staff member or members nominated by the authorised psychiatrist for the duration of the limited community treatment; and
(ii)that for the purposes of the limited community treatment he comply with the directions of the nominated staff member or members for its duration.
0
0
2