Re Shepherd

[2009] QMHC 23

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Shepherd [2009] QMHC 23

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF DONNA MAREE SHEPHERD

PROCEEDING:

No 167 of 2008

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2009

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING
 PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J Lawrence
Dr E McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1. That at the time of the alleged offences the subject of the reference, the defendant was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld);

2.    That the defendant is fit for trial;

3.    That proceedings against the defendant continue according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with fraud and attempted fraud – where expert opinion differs as to whether defendant suffered from a depressive illness of such severity as to amount to major depressive illness – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of those offences

COUNSEL:

Mr J Briggs for the Defendant
Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
Mr  D Holliday for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

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

J:  PHILIPPIDES

1. Donna Maree Shepherd is charged with fraud to the value of $5,000 or more between 28 May 2004 and 24 August 2004, and also with attempted to fraud between 24 July 2004 and 26 July 2004.

1. The Court has the benefit of reports from Dr Beech, Dr Chalk, and also a report of Dr Grant and has heard evidence from Dr Beech and Dr Chalk.  I note that Dr Chalk saw the defendant in February 2009 and Dr Beech in 2008.

1. Essentially, Dr Chalk saw the defendant as having a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood in the setting of chronic pain and considered that the defendant's illness was not of sufficient severity at the relevant times to have deprived her of any capacity.  However, Dr Beech, in his initial report was of the opinion that the defendant's condition was of such severity as to constitute a major depressive illness and he was of the view that there was a deprivation of the capacity to know at the relevant times.

1. I note that there was no evidence of any psychosis at the relevant time and that the opinion that Dr Chalk offered coincided with that of Dr Grant who saw the defendant in 2005. Dr Beech in his initial opinion saw the matter as a borderline one and moved away from his opinion when he had the opportunity in more recent times to view the results of urine testing from a sample taken from the defendant in February this year.

1. The urine screening revealed very high usage of drugs.  It has caused Dr Beech to have some doubts as to the veracity of the reports of the defendant.  Given his initial view was that the matter was a borderline one and the doubts that he now has in relation to the defendant's reporting and the lack of collateral evidence to support a diagnosis of major depression, Dr Beech stated that he had an ambivalent attitude towards the initial opinion he provided in his report and that he could not firmly adhere to that opinion any more.

1. In the light of those concessions, and the firm view expressed by Dr Chalk supported in terms of diagnosis by the opinion of Dr Grant, I am unable to accept that the defendant suffered from a depressive illness of such severity as to amount to major depressive illness nor to come to the conclusion that the defendant was deprived of the capacity to know that she ought not do the acts at the relevant times.

1. In those circumstances, I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant times.  I find that the defendant is fit for trial.  The proceedings will continue according to law and I grant leave to the parties to use the medical reports before the Court in further proceedings.