Re Scheffler

[2007] QMHC 19

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Scheffler [2007] QMHC 019

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF STEPHEN RICHARD SCHEFFLER

PROCEEDING:

No 0020 of 2007

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J M Lawrence
Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. The defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offence.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with one count of arson – where expert opinion was that the defendant was suffering from bipolar disorder, manic state, at the time of the alleged offence and was as a result deprived of one of the relevant capacities – where defendant had a history of substance abuse – where there was no direct evidence of drug taking by the defendant at the material time or immediately before it – whether the deprivation of any of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offence was contributed to by intentional intoxication – whether the defendant was of unsound mind – whether a forensic order should be made

COUNSEL:

A Gundelach for the defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health

A Lossberg for The Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the defendant
Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health

The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

1. PHILIPPIDES J:  Stephen Richard Scheffler is charged with one count of arson on 2 September 2004.  The defendant's mental condition at the time of the alleged offence has been referred to this Court.

1. The defendant reported that some days prior to the alleged offence he had a disagreement with his then girlfriend.  He had driven to Byron Bay in order to let off steam.  He reports that he ran out of fuel somewhere along the New South Wales border and so he walked some 12 hours to his mother's house at Mermaid Waters.  He had an argument there with his aunt and left.  He swam across the canal, swam back and called police from another house.  He was subsequently taken to the Gold Coast Hospital and given various medication.  He was there for some three days before absconding on 31 August, 2004.

1. After absconding he reported walking around all day.  It was raining and he said that he entered a building through an open carport.  He reported that he could not get out of the building.  He got into a lift and trapped himself in the lift by pulling out some wires from a fuse box.  He reported that he lit a fire in the lift to attract attention and that the fire brigade subsequently rescued him.  He also gave an account that he had gone to the lift to disable it to prevent it from becoming operational and decided to use the lift as a makeshift shelter as he was homeless and could not sleep in the park because of the inclement weather. 

1. He was arrested soon after the incident on 2 September 2004 and taken to the watch house and subsequently to the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, where he was seen by a psychiatrist and treated.

1. The defendant does have a history of previous admissions to hospital in 2000 and of suffering from psychotic illness.  He also has a history of substance abuse. 

1. He was at the time in question apparently taking the medication Tofranil in excessive quantities.  There was also a report of his using amphetamines some time before the events in questions, approximately two weeks prior to his admission to the Gold Coast Hospital.  He was tested positive on 28 August 2004 for cannabis, but no other substance was detected. 

1. The Court was provided with reports and heard oral evidence from Dr Williams and Dr Varghese. 

1. Dr Williams in his report considered that the most likely diagnosis of the defendant's mental state at the relevant time was one of substance induced psychotic disorder.  He offered a differential diagnosis of bipolar disorder (manic phase) but discounted that, largely on the basis that he considered the defendant's conduct at the relevant time was of an irrational nature and inconsistent with a bipolar illness.  However, when giving oral evidence today, and looking at the matter from a longitudinal position, Dr Williams tended to favour bipolar disorder as operative at the relevant time. 

1. Dr Williams also expressed the view in his report that he considered the defendant to have been affected by illicit drugs at the relevant time and that he was therefore intoxicated.  Whilst Dr Williams considered the defendant to have been deprived of at least one of the relevant capacities, he saw illicit drug use and intoxication as contributing to that deprivation.  When giving evidence today, Dr Williams, however, accepted that there was no direct evidence of drug taking at the material time or immediately before it and accepted that the opinion that he had expressed was based on speculation as to the defendant using illicit drugs during the period he absconded from hospital.

1. Dr Varghese in his opinion to the Court stated that he considered the defendant to be suffering from bipolar disorder at the relevant time and to be in a manic state.  He discounted intoxication from cannabis as being likely to cause such a state.  And while he accepted that amphetamine or ecstasy use could contribute to such a state, he noted that there was no evidence of such drug taking immediately prior to the events in question.  There was a report of such drug taking some two weeks prior to admission, but even if that account could be acted upon, Dr Varghese considered it unlikely to be a factor which would result in intoxication at the relevant time. 

1. Dr Varghese also disagreed with Dr Williams' view that the nature of the defendant's conduct was not consistent with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.  He noted that the view expressed by Dr Williams failed to take into account that the defendant was in a manic phase and psychotic and opined that, in that context, irrational behaviour such as that reported and described by the defendant was not unusual.  While he noted that the defendant's use of Tofranil may have contributed to his mental state, he observed it would not have had an intoxicating effect.  He therefore concluded that at the relevant time the defendant was suffering from a mental disease and as a result of that was deprived of the capacity of control and also of knowing that he ought not to do the act and considered him to be of unsound mind.

1. As with the assisting psychiatrists, I also would prefer the opinion of Dr Varghese over that of Dr Williams.  I note that in any event Dr Williams moved substantially from his initial opinion as to the appropriate diagnosis and also expressed ambivalence in relation to the initial position he had taken on the issue of intoxication.  There is no evidence before the Court, which could be acted upon, to suggest that the defendant had consumed illicit drugs or any other substance such that he was intoxicated at the relevant time and any inference to be drawn in that regard would be entirely speculative.  Accordingly, I find that at the relevant time, the defendant was of unsound mind.

1. On the issue of a forensic order, I note that the alleged offending occurred quite sometime ago now, that the defendant has been in stable employment and is in a stable relationship with a supportive family.  There has been no report of any ongoing disturbance.  The defendant appears to have insight into his situation and has in the past sought assistance when appropriate.  In those circumstances, a forensic order is not made.