Re Simpson

[2009] QMHC 20

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Simpson [2009] QMHC 20

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF LARRY SIMPSON

PROCEEDING NO:

8 of 2009

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 December 2009

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING
 PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr F T Varghese
Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1. That at the time of the alleged offences the subject of the reference, the defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld);

2.    That the defendant be detained as a forensic patient   at Princess Alexandra Hospital Authorised Mental Health Service;

3.   That limited community treatment is approved to

commence immediately on the conditions contained in

the submission from the Director of Mental Health.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with two counts of robbery with actual violence, armed in company, wounded, used personal violence and two counts of common assault – where expert opinion differs as to whether the defendant was deprived by reason of his mental illness of the capacity to control his actions – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the relevant time.

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2

COUNSEL:

J Briggs for the Defendant
J Tate for the Director of Mental Health
J Finch 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)

PHILIPPIDES J:

1. Larry Simpson was charged with two counts of robbery with actual violence, armed in company, wounded, used personal violence.  He is also charged with two counts of common assault.  All matters relate to events which took place on 4 August 2008.

1. The material before the Court indicates that the defendant has a mental illness of a serious nature.  He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in about 2001.  He underwent treatment between 2002 and 2007 under the Mental Health Act.  He ceased being treated in 2007 and the offences in question occurred not long thereafter whilst he was not medicated.

1. The defendant reported his symptoms at the material time to Dr Daniel.  They largely accorded with what was observed by the Community Forensic Mental Health Service, who saw the defendant on the day following the events in question, that is on 5 August 2008.  I note that both Dr Chau and Dr Daniel had no doubt that at the material time the defendant was psychotic.

1. Dr Chau was of the view that there was a consequent deprivation of capacity and in her report of 25 September 2009 outlined that she considered the deprivation to be one of the capacity of control and explained the factors which led to that conclusion.  In addition, she gave oral evidence which augmented her written report.  It is clear that she saw the deprivation in the context of the defendant being floridly psychotic, disorganised in his thinking, with a sense of entitlement and symptoms of grandiosity.

1. Dr Daniel in his report of 3 November 2008 had also concluded that the defendant was deprived by reason of his mental illness of the capacity to control his actions.  However, in giving oral evidence, he expressed some reservation about that view.  The reservation stemmed partly from Dr Daniel’s view that there was an aspect in respect of the events in question arising from the defendant’s anti-social personality disorder.  Additionally, he seemed troubled by not being able to clearly assign a delusional belief or hallucination as the driving force behind the deprivation of capacity. 

1. Dr Chau also had referred to the role of personality in the offending conduct.  Whilst accepting that there was some basis for opining that the defendant had anti-social personality traits, she was quite clear in her view that she could not conclude that there was an anti-social personality disorder present in this case.  She saw the deprivation very firmly in terms of the defendant’s mental illness alone.  It was a position which she was able to articulate with clarity.

1. I note also that Dr Varghese, in advising the Court, has made a pertinent observation in terms of the longitudinal history of the defendant.  The material before the Court indicates that although the defendant has prior to 2002 a history of offending, there is no offending during the extensive period to 2007 when the defendant was engaged in treatment.  That was a matter which Dr Chau also made passing reference to as being material in terms of forming an opinion as to the existence of anti personality disorder and dismissing it as a factor in the events in question.

1. I prefer the opinion of Dr Chau, as I note do the assisting psychiatrists.  It was not only a clearly presented view, but it was a consistent view, and it is one which sits well with the longitudinal history of the defendant not offending whilst engaged in treatment.  In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant times.

1. As regards the issue of management, this is a case where I consider a forensic order is warranted in terms of the seriousness of the alleged offending, the obvious ongoing treatment needs of the defendant and the need to protect the community.

1. Accordingly, I order that the defendant be detained in the Princess Alexandra Hospital authorised mental health service.  I approve limited community treatment to commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the conditions contained in the submission from the Director of Mental Health dated 27 November 2009.