Re RTF

[2004] QMHC 17

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re RTF [2004] QMHC 017

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT IN RESPECT OF RTF

PROCEEDING:

0115 of 2003

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

JUDGE:

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Wilson J

Dr J M Lawrence
Dr J F Wood

FINDINGS:

That the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence;1)   

that a forensic order not be made.2)   

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where the defendant is charged with unlawful stalking – where the defendant suffers from bi-polar affective disorder – where the defendant has been compliant with and responsive to treatment – where there is conflicting expert psychiatric opinion on whether a forensic order should be made

Mental Health Act 2000, schedule 2

COUNSEL:

S Hamlyn-Harris for the defendant
B Isdale for the Director of Mental Health
R Martin for the Director of Public Prosecutions

1. WILSON J: RTF has been charged with unlawful stalking on 4 April 2003. I am satisfied that at the time of the alleged offence he was suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000.

1. The question then becomes whether the Court ought to make a forensic order and, in considering this, the Court has to consider the seriousness of the offence, his treatment needs, and the protection of the community.

1. RTF was born on 1 October 1973.  He suffers from bi-polar affective disorder.  The offending conduct occurred when he was in a manic phase of that disorder.  Subsequent to the offending behaviour, he was an inpatient in the Princess Alexandra Hospital for 2 months.  Over that time, he gradually responded to the treatment provided, but it must be said that during the period of the hospitalisation he was sometimes aggressive, if not showing a propensity to violence, and that at times he was reluctant to take medication.

1. However, since his discharge from the hospital he has progressed well.  The Court has a report from Dr Tom Hogan, consultant psychiatrist, dated 4 December 2003.  At that stage he was still receiving treatment from Princess Alexandra Hospital on an out-patient basis.  He was compliant with treatment.  Since then he has been in the care of his general practitioner and the Court has today received an up-to-date report from the general practitioner which indicates that his mood is stable, he has insight into his condition, and he is compliant with treatment.

1. He was subject to an involuntary treatment order after his admission to Princess Alexandra Hospital.  That was revoked shortly after his discharge.  It was revoked on 17 June 2003.

1. There were 2 earlier admissions to hospital.  The first was between 12 and 16 January 2001; he was not prescribed ongoing medication after his discharge.  The second was between 3rd and 10th February 2003; he was prescribed ongoing medication upon his discharge and his counsel conceded that he was somewhat resistant to taking the medication.  Of course, the manic phase in which the offending behaviour occurred followed several months after that admission.

1. When one considers the seriousness of the offence, it is relevant to take account of the particular circumstances.  Here the stalking was of an elderly man.  The defendant, who had grown up in an adoptive family, was apparently searching for his natural father and thought that this elderly man whom he saw might well be his father.  It resulted in his following the elderly man in his motor vehicle for up to an hour until they arrived at the local police station.  It must have been a very disturbing if not frightening experience for the victim.  That said, in terms of the range of stalking offences which come before the Court this is towards the lower end.

1. In terms of the risks to the community, it must be borne in mind that bi-polar affective disorder is a cycling condition.  As Dr Hogan said in his report:

"When well, I believe that RTF is a functioning member of our society.  He has been a successful builder and there is evidence that he has worked well in his profession.  His illness is indeed a great affliction for him and will require lifetime monitoring.  There is a risk that his illness will relapse and the risks of this are greatly increased if he is not taking mood stabilising medication."

1. Dr Wood advised the Court that there is need for ongoing specialist supervision and, in his view, a forensic order could secure this.  Dr Lawrence, while agreeing that compliance with treatment is very important, considered that on balance the risk of relapse and re-offending was comparatively low and did not support the making of a forensic order.

1. The counsel for the DPP rightly drew attention to the matters for concern in the hospital records but was neutral in terms of a submission as to whether an order ought to be made.  Counsel for the defendant and counsel for the Director of Mental Health did not support the making of an order.

1. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that his treatment needs are presently being adequately met and that he has insight into his condition and is compliant with treatment.  In my view, there is not the necessary foundation for the Court to make a forensic order.  However, I would stress, in the interests of the defendant and in the interests of the community, that it is most important that he continue to come under the guidance of medical practitioners and that he continue to be compliant with the treatment they prescribe.