The State of Western Australia v PETERSEN-CROFTS
[2021] WASC 47
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PETERSEN-CROFTS [2021] WASC 47
CORAM: QUINLAN CJ
HEARD: 12 & 15 FEBRUARY 2021
DELIVERED : 15 FEBRUARY 2021
PUBLISHED : 24 FEBRUARY 2021
FILE NO/S: INS 94 of 2019
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
TEANCUM VERNON PETERSEN-CROFTS
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Trial by judge alone – Murder – Insanity – Whether accused was mentally impaired – Whether accused lacked capacity to control actions – Whether accused lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act – Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 27
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 20, s 24, s 25, s 26, s 33
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 93, s 149
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32
Result:
Accused found not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind
Custody order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Prosecution | : | P M Usher |
| Accused | : | K J Farley SC |
Solicitors:
| Prosecution | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
| Accused | : | Legal Aid WA |
Cases referred to in decision:
Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
The State of Western Australia v Ihalahewa [2020] WASCA 386
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254
QUINLAN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 15 February 2021 and has been edited from the transcript to include, in endnotes, references to relevant law and evidence.)
Teancum Vernon Petersen‑Crofts, you have been charged that on 15 July 2018 at Ellenbrook, you murdered Bella Michelle Petersen, Michelle Gene Petersen and Rua Leslie Tukatahi Petersen‑Tauranga.
You pleaded not guilty to each charge on the ground of unsoundness of mind.[1]
As I advised you at the start of this trial, there are a number of important principles of law that applied to this trial and which apply to every trial. You are presumed innocent of the charges that have been brought against you and the burden of proving your guilt is on the State.
Even though the charges have been heard together, it is important for me to remember that there are three separate charges and I must reach a separate verdict in relation to each charge based on the evidence relating to each charge. The standard of proof that the State must achieve is proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the State does not prove the charges I must find you not guilty.
Also in this case, if the State proves the elements of murder other than the element of intent beyond reasonable doubt,[2] I must decide whether you are not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind. The onus is on you to prove that defence on the balance of probabilities.[3]
In deciding your case I have not let emotions or sympathy or prejudice play any part in my decision. I have decided your case only on the facts and the law as applied to those facts. I have carefully considered the evidence produced by both the State and on your behalf.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 15 July 2018 at Ellenbrook, you killed your mother, Michelle Petersen, your sister, Bella Petersen, and your brother, Rua Petersen‑Tauranga.[4] You caused their deaths by stabbing each of them with a knife.[5]
I am also satisfied that at the time you killed your mother, your sister and your brother you were not criminally responsible for doing so on account of unsoundness of mind.[6] I am satisfied that at the time of the killings you were suffering from a mental illness. In particular, I find that you were suffering from schizophrenia.[7] Both Dr de Klerk and Dr Patchett gave evidence before me that in their opinion you were suffering from schizophrenia.[8]
I am not bound to accept their opinions about that, it is a matter for me to decide.[9] But I do accept their opinions and find that you were suffering from a mental illness at the time.
Dr de Klerk and Dr Patchett described your illness slightly differently. Dr de Klerk said that you were suffering from treatment‑resistant schizophrenia[10] and Dr Patchett described it as paranoid schizophrenia;[11] but their opinion was to the same effect: that you have suffered from schizophrenia for a long time, since you were 14 or 15 years old, that your symptoms have been consistent over time[12] and that you were suffering from symptoms at the time that you killed your family.[13]
Dr de Klerk and Dr Patchett also found that you had a substance use disorder by reason of your past use of cannabis and methylamphetamine.[14] However, I am positively satisfied that you were not intoxicated at the time of the killings. Blood tests confirm that there were no drugs found in your system and I am satisfied that you had not used any drugs at around the time of the killings.[15]
Dr de Klerk and Dr Patchett also gave opinions as to the effect that your schizophrenia had on you at the time that you killed your mum, your brother and your sister. I am satisfied that, at the time that you killed them, you were deprived of the capacity to control your actions. At that time, you were experiencing hallucinations and delusions that compelled you to act in the way that you did.[16]
Those delusions included commands and instructions from different gods whose voices you had heard before.[17] The voices were telling you that you must kill your family to save yourself and to save the world. I am satisfied that you could not resist the commands and instructions of those voices. Those commands were delusions, but I find they were real to you at the time, as real as I am speaking to you now.[18]
I am also satisfied, for similar reasons, that at the time of the killings you were deprived of the capacity to know that you ought not do those acts; in other words, you did not have the capacity to know that what you were doing was wrong according to everyday standards of reasonable people.[19]
In fact, because of your delusions and the commands you were receiving you believed that your actions, as horrifying as they were, were the right thing to do.[20]
Because your mental illness deprived you of the capacity to control your actions and to know that you ought not to kill your mother and Bella and Rua, you are not criminally responsible for their deaths. That means you will be found not guilty of the three charges against you for that reason.
As I have said, you have suffered from a serious mental illness for a long time, for which, as Dr Patchett put it, you have never received adequate or sustained antipsychotic treatment.[21] A criminal trial is not the time or the place to consider how the community can better help people like you who suffer daily from serious mental illnesses. That is for another time and there are many people who know a lot more about those issues than I do.
But it is still true to say, Mr Petersen‑Crofts, that we – the whole community – have failed you. And we failed your mum and your sister and your brother. And we failed your grandmother and the rest of your family, whose loss is indescribable.
In addition to being remembered by everyone who loved them as the people they were, the names Bella Petersen, Michelle Petersen and Rua Petersen‑Tauranga should be a constant reminder to us all that we can and we must do better at assisting those in our community who suffer from serious mental illnesses.
In the meantime, Mr Petersen‑Crofts, I am required by law to make a custody order under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996.[22] That means that you will return to the hospital where you are currently living and it will be for the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to decide where you live after that.[23]
The Board is required to regularly give reports to the Minister about you. Those reports will include recommendations about your treatment, the safety of the community and whether you can be released in the future.[24] Whether you are released in the future is for the government to decide.[25]
Please now stand, Mr Petersen‑Crofts.
On the charge that on 15 July 2018 at Ellenbrook you murdered Bella Michelle Petersen, I find you not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.
On the charge that on 15 July 2018 at Ellenbrook you murdered Michelle Gene Petersen, I find you not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.
On the charge that on 15 July 2018 at Ellenbrook you murdered Rua Leslie Tukatahi Petersen‑Tauranga, I find you not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.
I enter a judgment of acquittal on account of unsoundness of mind in relation to each charge and I make a custody order in respect of you. The effect of the custody order is that you will be detained until released by an order of the Governor.
I certify that the preceding paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AK
Principal Associate to the Honourable Chief Justice Quinlan
24 FEBRUARY 2021
[1]Trial ts 42. The trial was conducted in accordance with s 93(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (see ts 46).
[2]Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254 [20] (Kennedy J), [39] (Pidgeon J), [52] ‑ [56] (Wallwork J), [103] (Scott J).
[3]R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182.
[4]The accused formally admitted, pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), that on 15 July 2018 he killed Michelle Gene Petersen, Rua Leslie Tukatahi and Bella Michelle Petersen (Exhibit 17).
[5] State's Summary of Material Facts (Exhibit 6) [97] ‑ [101].
Post‑mortem report of Dr White, Forensic Pathologist dated 11 July 2019 (Exhibit 9A) together with photographs of the injuries to Michelle Petersen (Exhibit 9B).
Post‑mortem report of Dr White, Forensic Pathologist dated 13 July 2019 (Exhibit 10A) together with photographs of the injuries to Bella Petersen (Exhibit 10B).
Post‑mortem report of Dr White, Forensic Pathologist dated 13 July 2019 (Exhibit 11A) together with photographs of the injuries to Rua Petersen‑Tauranga (Exhibit 11B).
[6]Criminal Code (WA) s 27. See definition of 'mental impairment' and 'mental illness' (Criminal Code, s 1(1)).
[7]Schizophrenia is, plainly, a mental illness within the meaning of s 1(1) of the Criminal Code (see The State of Western Australia v Ihalahewa [2020] WASC 386 [43] ‑ [44] (Fiannaca J).
[8]Report of Dr Daniel de Klerk, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), page 9.
Trial ts 98 ‑ 99 (Dr de Klerk).
Report of Dr Steven Patchett, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), pages 15 ‑ 16.
Trial ts 121, 124 (Dr Patchett).
[9]Hone v The State of Western Australia[2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138 [124] (Miller JA, Steytler P relevantly agreeing & Wheeler JA agreeing).
[10]Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), page 9 [86]:
In my opinion, Mr Petersen‑Crofts presents with symptoms consistent with a severe and enduring mental illness, namely Schizophrenia, with residual positive psychotic symptoms consisting of auditory and visual hallucinations and delusions. In Mr Petersen‑Crofts's case, this illness was diagnosed on the basis of the prolonged presence of hallucinations and delusions. The illness is treatment resistant in that he continues to experience symptoms despite treatment with clozapine and mood stabilisers. Even during my last interview with him on 11 January 2021, he experienced command auditory hallucinations in keeping with those that he had consistently reported at the time of his alleged offending.
Trial ts 98 ‑ 99 (Dr de Klerk):
My first opinion was that Mr Petersen‑Crofts has a psychiatric illness which is treatment‑resistant schizophrenia. …
Now, two and a half years later, after – after the index event, Mr Petersen‑Crofts still exhibited both positive and negative symptoms. He still had hallucinations, he still had delusions. Now, this was despite treatment with the gold standard of treatment in schizophrenia which is a medication called Clozapine, which is used for difficult to treat treatment‑resistant schizophrenia. Therefore, my opinion was … treatment‑resistant schizophrenia.
[11]Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), pages 16:
Mr Petersen‑Crofts has a very serious mental illness, Paranoid Schizophrenia.
Trial ts 124 (Dr Patchett):
Are you able to comment upon the symptoms and etiology of paranoid schizophrenia as it relates to Mr Petersen‑Crofts?---Yes. Just going back we heard from Dr de Klerk an excellent description of schizophrenia. The combination of positive symptoms and negative symptoms and the positive symptoms being the ones that really relate to unsoundness of mind. But they – they essentially are psychosis although there can be changes in feelings as well and psychosis generally is three things. It's hallucinations, delusions and thought disorder, all of which he has.
[12] Bundle of medical evidence and medical reports in relation to the accused (Exhibit 14).
Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), pages 3 ‑ 4 [24] ‑ [38].
Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), pages 2 ‑ 6.
Trial ts 124 ‑ 125 (Dr Patchett):
Mr Petersen‑Crofts is extremely unwell. Extremely unwell. And that goes right back to the age of 14 or he was actually under 15 when he first presented to Princess Margaret Hospital – to Invercargill Hospital and then Princess Margaret Hospital. And – and his father and I – I realise it's a second‑hand or hearsay explanation, but his father explains how unwell he was just one day and then went onto the beach and it's in – it's in the reports, but was evangelous. He – he was an evangelical person who was attempting to – to spread the word – the word of the lord and was aggressive and loud and noisy about that. But – but Mr Petersen‑Crofts gave a very excellent example of how he was perplexed that he just was standing for long periods of time and just looking at things and I believe that was the beginning of a psychosis.
And it's well known in – in psychiatry that the earlier you develop psychosis, the worse the prognosis is and this is a very early onset I believe. And then the subsequent admission and there are excellent medical records that describe the phenomena of that admission and the same sorts of things that we've observed and we've heard from Dr de Klerk and I've got in my reports through the years, remarkably consistent. Mother earth has always played a part in that.
[13] Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), pages 11 ‑ 12 [94], [104]:
Mr Petersen‑Crofts experienced impaired mental functioning preceding the alleged offending. He was experiencing command visual and auditory hallucinations and bizarre and persecutory delusions. …
From the information available, it is clear that Mr Petersen‑Crofts experienced psychotic symptoms at the time of the alleged offending. He spoke about serial killers, he experienced command auditory hallucinations to kill his family members and to tell others about this. He also experienced bizarre, religious and persecutory delusions about being killed. Furthermore, Mr Petersen‑Crofts described that it was impossible to resist these commands.
Trial ts 124 ‑ 125 (Dr de Klerk):
So in relation to that nexus, what observations did you make?---I formed the impression that Mr Petersen‑Crofts' mental illness was directly causatively linked to the index offence.
…
How were you able to do that?---Both by talking with him about his mental state around the time of the – of the index offence and also reading the hospital admission notes that was taken down comprehensively on his admission.
Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), page 17:
With regard to mental state at the time of the alleged offence, Mr Petersen‑Crofts has described remarkably consistent auditory hallucinations and delusions throughout his admission to the Frankland Centre. When seen acutely, around 36 hours after the incident, he described florid hallucinations and delusions to Dr Tate and Dr Walker and was significantly thought disordered. His initial psychotic disorganisation and thought disorder prevented him from accurately describing his experiences and how they affected his decisions to act as he did but with time and treatment he has become consistently clear in explaining how his mental illness affected his decisions at the time.
[14] Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), page 10 [90]:
His regular use of cannabis and methylamphetamine also satisfies the diagnostic criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder and Stimulant (amphetamine type) Disorder, both in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), page 15.
[15]Final ChemCentre report in relation to Teancum Vernon Petersen‑Crofts of Dr Francois Jacobus Oosthuizen dated 24 August 2018 (Exhibit 12):
Alcohol Not Detected
Cannabinoids by Immunoassay Negative
Common synthetic cannabinoids Not Detected
Common psychoactive drugs Not Detected
Other common basic drugs Not Detected
Trial ts 113 (Dr de Klerk):
[I]n this case you did refer to your diagnosis of Mr Petersen‑Crofts including substance use disorder but as I understand your report, the psychosis that he was experiencing at the times that you've spoken of in your evidence was not due to intoxication from substances he having not, as I understand it, shown any evidence of intoxication at that time?---I – your Honour, I – I pointed that out in my report. The emergency doctor that discharged Mr Petersen‑Crofts specifically made a note that he did not appear to be affected by substances. A blood test that was performed not many hours after the alleged offending excluded the presence of substances there. Now, I say again Mr Petersen‑Crofts' symptoms have been consistent in nature for the four years before the index offence and indeed continues.
[16] Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), page 13 [113]:
I do however believe that Mr Petersen‑Crofts did not have the capacity to control his actions due to the intensity of his persecutory delusions, the belief that he could not resist the commands of auditory hallucinations, and the presence of passivity symptoms (the belief that your actions are controlled by an external force).
Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), page 17:
I do believe that it is likely that Mr Petersen‑Crofts was deprived of the capacity to control his actions when he attacked his family members with a knife. He had described experiencing delusions of control in the weeks leading up to the killings. He has repeatedly explained that he felt strongly compelled to carry out the 'instructions' of the voice of Mother Earth. He said 'it was like a religion, their word was gospel' and the voice kept saying 'you gotta do it. You gotta do it'.
[17] Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), page 13 [105]:
It is my opinion that the religious and persecutory content of his delusions, his fear that his family would kill him, and that 4 billion people would die as well as his preoccupation with a serial killer are likely to have constituted a causal link between his symptoms of schizophrenia and the resulting alleged offending.
Trial ts 109 (Dr de Klerk):
In relation to the second capacity, the capacity to control one's actions, what is your expert opinion?---My opinion is that he did not have the capacity to control his actions as a result of what was overwhelming command divine hallucinations and also in combination with this feeling that he's – he felt that his body and his actions were controlled by an outside entity.
Trial ts 126, 131 (Dr Patchett):
[Y]our Honour, just to expand on that it's – it's very clear – I – I call it the polymorphous psychosis. It's very clear that he had hallucinations for a lot of different sources and – and including in the early days from – from his – from his Maori heritage in New Zealand from the entities Papa and – and Rangi, the earth – the sky – the – the mother earth and the sky father. And, of course, later in the Princess Margaret admission he talks – and I'm not sure if that's a misinterpretation but 'Mummy in the sky'. … But – but – but I – there are so many different themes to his hallucinations and his delusions and it's – and again it's a reflection of just how psychotic he – he was I believe.
FARLEY, MS: And can those different themes all co‑exist - - -?---Yes, yes. - - - in the one delusional state?---Yes.
And – and what is your view in terms of Mr Petersen‑Crofts as – as to that? There are a number of themes that run through?---Yes. And they can – you'll notice how for example even mother earth says he's going to be killed and then, 'Kill your mother and your sister and your brother'. The – the – they'll even say different things at different times. [Nobody] knows why that happens although we understand it's a major disturbance of neurotransmission in the brain. Neurotransmitters in the brain are the underlying neurophysiological basis for psychosis and – and schizophrenia. …But – but I talk about a number of themes through his delusions and to his hallucinations. They just in my view go to just how seriously unwell he has been for all of that time.
…
I believe hallucinations likewise and … the polymorphous element to those, … seem to attach to a whole bunch of themes really. There's a whole bunch of deities that he's talked about but the consistent one is mother earth and it's her that influenced, in my belief on – on that night.
[18] Trial ts 130 (Dr Patchett):
[H]allucinations are – and I – and I stress this all the time, they're not imagination. It's not a disorder of imagination, it's a disorder of perception. So just as my voice is coming across both in through your ears into your brain, a hallucination sounds like that. You can't differentiate it between my voice and, you know, if I weren't here somebody else sitting here talking about that.
[19] R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182, 189 ‑ 190 (Dixon J).
[20] Report of Dr de Klerk dated 18 January 2021 (Exhibit 15), page 13 [114]:
I am of the opinion that Mr Petersen‑Crofts also did not know that he ought not do the act of killing his mother and siblings, again due to the nature and severity of the symptoms (specifically divine command hallucinations and his mind being controlled) of his long‑standing psychotic illness.
Trial ts 110 (Dr de Klerk):
In relation to the third capacity, the capacity to know that he ought not do the act or make the admission, what is your expert opinion?---My opinion is that he – he did not know that he ought not to do the act and I base that on much – on much the same history that I elicited in the second limb. When one's god orders you to do something it is very difficult to resist and especially if the act is to preserve your own life and I – I – I do – my expert opinion is that he did not know that he ought not to do that because he was ordered by his god.
Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), page 18:
I am of the opinion that there is compelling evidence from a psychiatric perspective that Mr Petersen‑Crofts was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the acts of stabbing his mother, sister and half brother which resulted in their deaths. He was suffering from psychosis at the time, characterised by delusions and hallucinations, that led him to believe an alternative reality existed in which he must carry out the acts he did in order to save the world and his own life.
Trial ts 131 ‑ 132 (Dr Patchett):
He believed he had to. He believed it was right to do.
QUINLAN CJSC: And is it fair to say that at least in Mr Petersen‑Crofts' case in your opinion the two capacities that you've referred to are the inability to control actions to know he not – he ought not to do the action are related because the compulsion under the control is that this act is the right thing to do which I ought to do?---Yes. It's a - - -
And so there's a - - -?---Exactly.
Within the confines of the delusion a moral imperative to do it?---Yes. Yes, that's correct, your Honour, that's a very important point. Yes. So that he believes an alternative reality existed and – and totally believed that. That – that led him to the – the acts that resulted in the offences – in these offences.
[21]Report of Dr Patchett dated 26 August 2020 (Exhibit 16), page 16:
It is also clear that he has never received adequate nor sustained antipsychotic treatment since first becoming unwell at the age of 14/15 years old. His disorder has been characterised by prominent positive symptoms; hallucinations; delusions and thought disorder and compounded by pronounced lack of insight. He has also very often presented with marked agitation and aggression which contaminated his relationships and attachments to family and supports. As a result of these factors he has never adequately engaged with mental health services and has been sub‑optimally treated for the past six to seven years. He has routinely failed to engage with community follow up after every admission he has had.
Significantly, it is apparent that Mr Petersen‑Crofts had no treatment at all for the six months leading up to the alleged offences, from the time he left WA to live with his father in Queensland at the end of January 2018, until the incident on 14/15 July 2018.
[22]Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 149; Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 20.
[23] Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), ss 25, 26.
[24] Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 33.
[25] Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 24(1).
2
6
0