Re Stanbrook

[2010] QMHC 9

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

CITATION:

Re Stanbrook [2010] QMHC 9

PARTIES:

REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF MANDY LOUISE STANBROOK

PROCEEDING:

No 202 of 2009

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2010

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS:

Dr J M Lawrence
Dr E N McVie

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

1. That there is a reasonable doubt within the meaning of s 268 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) that the defendant committed the alleged offences;

That the defendant is not fit for trial and the unfitness is of a permanent nature;2.      

hat the defendant be detained to the Princess Alexandria Hospital Authorised Mental Health Service;T3.      

Approval of limited community treatment to commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the conditions contained in the submission of the Director of Mental Health.4.      

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF

MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with nine counts of sexual assault, three counts of assault with attempt to commit rape and one count of administer stupefying drug with intent to commit indictable offence -  where defendant suffers from mental retardation – where dispute of fact in relation to charges – whether  defendant fit for trial – whether a forensic order is required

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 268, 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. Mandy Louise Stanbrook is charged with nine counts of sexual assault between 20 July, 2008, and 23 July, 2008; three counts of assault with intent to commit rape, during the same period, and one count of administer stupefying drug with intent to commit indictable offence, also during the same dates.

1. The clinical material before the Court indicates that the defendant suffers from mild to moderately severe mental retardation.

1. There is also evidence that the defendant suffers from a depressive condition, in respect of which she has for some time been prescribed medication.

1. The material also indicates that there is a dispute in relation to the charges.  That dispute is not attributable to the defendant's mental condition, and accordingly, a reasonable doubt arises in relation to the charges, such that this Court is precluded from determining the question of the defendant's state of mind at the relevant times.

1. In relation to the question of fitness for trial, the clinical material before the Court is united in that the evidence indicates that the defendant is not fit for trial, and that that unfitness is of a permanent nature. 

1. The question arises as to whether a forensic order is warranted in the circumstances of this case.  On balance, I consider that a forensic order is warranted.  There are a number of concerning features which point to a forensic order being required.

1. The alleged offences are concerning ones, particularly given, as Doctor Lawrence pointed out, that they involved the use of medication prescribed for the defendant.

1. Moreover, the material indicates that the defendant's depressive condition does require on-going treatment. I note that Dr Aboud assessed the situation, and opined that a forensic order was not required. He did so in the context of the defendant residing with her mother and step-father, and at that time, being in a stable family environment. It appears that the family dynamic has evolved since then, and there is a very troubling dynamic which has occurred.  It seems that the defendant's husband, who was the co-accused, and who seems to have been dominant in the relationship, has had regular contact with the defendant, and that there has consequently been a deterioration in the relationship between the defendant and her own family, with demonstrated physical and verbal aggression towards them, including alleged use of a knife, and a report of self-harm.

1. Those matters raise serious concerns, when combined with a background of depression requiring medication over a lengthy period.

1. Additionally, there is the fact that the defendant has disengaged with GCCS, in circumstances where it is quite difficult for the department to pursue on-going therapies and treatment, specially psychological assistance and treatment with the defendant.

1. There is, in those circumstances, a risk not only to the public, but to the defendant, if a forensic order is not made.

1. Accordingly, I consider that a forensic order with limited community treatment, in accordance with the submission from the Director, is warranted.

1. I order that the defendant be detained to the Princess Alexandria Hospital Authorised Mental Health Service.

1. I approve a community treatment to commence immediately at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the conditions contained in the submission. I direct that a copy of today's transcript be provided to the treating psychiatrist.