The State of Western Australia v Wright - [2007] WASC 80

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- WRIGHT [2007] WASC 80

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 26 MARCH 2007

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2007

FILE NO/S: INS 105 of 2006

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
State
AND
ENOCH SAMUEL WRIGHT
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Wilful murder - Trial by Judge alone - Issue of insanity - No dispute in relation to medical evidence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 27
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 5, s 21, s 24
Criminal Procedure Act 2004, s 118, s 126(1)(d), s 147(2), s 149(1)

Result:

Verdict of not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

State: Mr D Dempster
Accused: Ms A Horrigan

Solicitors:

State: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Andree Horrigan

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Armanasco v The Queen (1951) 52 WALR 78
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Ward v The Queen (2000) 23 WAR 254

MILLER J: Enoch Samuel Wright is charged on an indictment alleging that, on 17 October 2005 at Kalgoorlie, he wilfully murdered Patricia Lynette Wright and in the alternative at the same place and on the same date murdered Patricia Lynette Wright.
To each count on the indictment, the accused pleaded not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind. Those pleas were entered pursuant to s 126(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (the Act).

Trial by Judge alone

The accused sought and was granted trial by Judge alone. An order to that effect was made by me on 11 December 2006, pursuant to the provisions of s 118 of the Act. Pursuant to s 118(4), I considered that it was in the interests of justice to make such an order. The facts of the case are not in dispute and the only issue for determination is the accused's state of mind at the time of the alleged offences. It is a case in which the provisions of s 93 of the Act could have been invoked, but the order made on 11 December 2006 was pursuant to s 118(4).
The trial proceeded on 26 March 2007 on the basis that statements within the prosecution brief and various exhibits could be tendered by consent. The only witnesses called were Detective Sergeant Shane Giblett (Det Giblett) and Dr Mircea Schineanu, a consultant psychiatrist. Det Giblett was called on behalf of the prosecution and Dr Schineanu on behalf of the accused.

The prosecution case

On 17 October 2005, Det Giblett was on duty at the Kalgoorlie detectives' office. At about 10.45 am he was advised that a male person had walked into the police station and stated that he had killed his mother. Det Giblett gave instructions for the person to be brought to the interview room of the detectives' office and he was there interviewed on a video record of interview which was tendered to the Court. A transcript of it was provided.
The contents of the video record of interview constitute a very clear account of what happened on 17 October 2005. The accused, who gave his date of birth as 9 July 1976 and his address as 121 Hanbury Street, Kalgoorlie, freely and voluntarily engaged in the interview. When asked to repeat what he had told officers at the Kalgoorlie police station, the accused said:
"A. Yes I, ah - - I murdered my mother because I believe that, um, I was acting out the will of God and only now do I realise that, um, it was God punishing me for disobeying him and not clearly understanding what he was trying to get me to do."
When asked to explain what actually happened on the morning of 17 October, the accused replied:
"A. Well, um, I heard - - I'm still trying to work out what was going on and I heard my mum actually, ah, mumble again - - the dog, she's like ... (indistinct) ... and then I realised what it said and, um, in the scripture that, ah, you know she's a false prophetess, her mumblings you know and she's no good, don't like her and, ah, if, ah, if you sleep with her, which I believe in biblical terms is technical for in the same house, um, I will smite her and cut off all her seed. Now, I believed that that was God's way of telling me that I needed to, um, kill my mother because, ah, everyone has to die in order to attain Godhood^?and I didn't realise til later on that I'd actually - - that I'd actually read another bit that said, um, ah - - I didn't realise what it actually meant that if I did, which means I was already in the house with her for one day and it was actually God acting that out as well, because that's why the death was so set up, it was so clean, she walked in the door ... (indistinct) ... didn't see it coming. So I believe I was possessed by God because of a lack of faith and, ah, basically being punished and this is my punishment for, ah, my inability to, ah, um, act out or become, ah, the entity or individual that God wanted me to be basically."
The accused went on to explain to the interviewing detectives that the killing had occurred at about 6 am on the morning in question. He was asked to explain exactly what had happened and he said:
"A. Basically mum walked in the door and the sword swung, boof, and as soon as it hit her, she was out of it and then she went back, bang, so she was completely out of it and then I slit her throat to make sure she died quick but she was unconscious so ‑ ‑"
The accused was asked what he had done after cutting his mother's throat. He said that he had killed his dog, cleaned the house and then buried his mother in a hole in the backyard. He said he had then sat down and meditated. He realised that he had no option but to hand himself in and said it would probably be best for him to go to gaol or "be killed". He added that he would ask for the death penalty if it was available.
When asked to explain in more detail what had happened, the accused indicated that he did not wish to talk about it. He just wanted his punishment, but did not want to talk "specifically about the actual event".
The accused was asked to explain where he had got the sword. He said that he had obtained it from Cash Converters a few years beforehand. It was described by him as a broad, metal sword with three unicorns on each side of the handle. It was a blunt sword and he explained that "Broad swords are actually designed for crushing not slashing". When pressed again to explain how he had cut his mother's throat, the accused indicated that he did not wish to talk about it.
Photographs of the sword used by the accused were tendered in evidence, together with a plan and an aerial photograph showing the position of burial of the deceased and the accused's dog.
A post‑mortem examination was performed on the deceased on 20 October 2005. The pathologist was Dr Jodie White. Her conclusion was that the cause of death was an incised wound neck injury. This injury consisted of a large incised neck wound, with injury to the trachea and left jugular vein. There was another incised wound over the left side of the face, with a laceration and bruising to the posterior aspect of the scalp. There was no other external or internal injury.
The only evidence led of events leading up to the killing on 17 October 2005 was the testimony of Mark David Gibb. In a written statement tendered by consent, Mr Gibb explained that he was Youth Pastor at the Kalgoorlie Church of Christ in Egan Street, Kalgoorlie. On Sunday, 16 October 2005, he went to the church at about 8.30 am for a service which began at 9 am. About 200 people were present at the service. At about 9.50 am, towards the end of the service, the accused, who was known to Mr Gibb from his days at primary school, was seen to enter the church. He walked down the aisle, holding a sword in his right hand and a Bible in his left hand. The sword was described by Mr Gibb as being about 100 centimetres in length with a gold, carved handle. He had seen a similar‑looking sword about a year before hanging on a wall in the bedroom of the accused. The Bible looked similar to one which Mr Gibb had previously seen in the possession of the accused.
The accused walked to what Mr Gibb described as the stage of the church. He put the sword on the pulpit and started reading aloud from the Bible. Mr Gibb was unable to understand what it was that the accused was saying, but later ascertained that it was a reading from (the General Epistle of) Jude
An elder of the church attempted to take the Bible from the accused, but the accused would not let it go. Mr Gibb's father, who was the Minister at the church, joined the elder in speaking with the accused. Another person went to the stage and grabbed the sword from the pulpit. The accused was then escorted from the church. In the foyer at the rear, he yelled something before leaving.

Legal principles

The accused is charged with the crime of wilful murder and in the alternative murder. Before the accused could be convicted of either offence, it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he committed one or other of them.
The accused made a formal admission that he killed the deceased and I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased.
The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Ward v The Queen(2000) 23 WAR 254 makes it clear that the first question I must determine in this trial is whether the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have killed the deceased. As the defence of insanity has been raised on behalf of the accused, it is appropriate that I then consider whether the accused was criminally responsible for the killing, having regard to the terms of s 27 of the Criminal Code (WA) (Code). Only if this question is answered adversely to the accused, does the next question arise; namely, what was his intention at the material time? The issue of insanity falls to be determined before the issue of intent: see Ward v The Queen (supra) per Kennedy J, at [25].

Criminal responsibility

The accused, by his defence, raises the defence of insanity. That is the defence contained in s 27 of the Code, which is in the following terms:
"A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission on account of unsoundness of mind if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental impairment as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission."
The term "mental impairment" is defined in the Code to mean intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility.
Mental illness is, in turn, defined in the following way:
"The term 'mental illness' means an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of short or long duration and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary stimuli."
Having raised the question of unsoundness of mind, there is an onus of proof on the accused to establish that his mental condition was such as to bring him within the provisions of s 27 of the Code: Armanasco v The Queen (1951) 52 WALR 78. It is sufficient if such fact is established to my satisfaction on the preponderance of probability that he was of unsound mind at the time he committed the offences on the deceased: R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182. It is necessary only that he establishes to that standard that, at the time of doing the acts in question, he was in such a state of mental impairment as to be deprived of one of the three capacities; namely, the capacity to understand what he was doing, or the capacity to control his actions, or the capacity to know he ought not to do the act. The question is whether he can establish on the balance of probability that he was of unsound mind on the day when the acts were done.

Evidence in relation to unsoundness of mind

The evidence of Dr Zdenek Srna

Dr Zdenek Srna is a Consultant Psychiatrist who specialises in general and forensic psychiatry. He is commonly regarded in this Court as a consultant psychiatrist well qualified to express expert opinion on the mental state of the accused. In a report dated 7 November 2006, addressed to the Consultant State Prosecutor, and tendered in the proceedings by consent, Dr Srna advised that he attended upon the accused at the Frankland Centre, Graylands Hospital, on 1 November 2006. He took a full history of events leading to the alleged offences and other relevant history which he required for a comprehensive forensic psychiatric assessment. He performed a mental state examination and acquainted himself with all the relevant evidence in the case.
Dr Srna interviewed the accused in the visitors' room at the Frankland Centre. He described the accused as profoundly mentally unwell, with a significant formal thought disorder. This precluded Dr Srna from being able to take the usual full history which is required for psychiatric examination. The result was that the history he received was incomplete and fragmented.
Dr Srna was able to ascertain that the accused had been born in Perth as the second youngest of four children. His eldest sister had committed suicide. He said that he came from a disturbed background in which there was constant fighting, yelling and screaming. He claimed that his mother was of the Mormon faith and his grandfather a member of "a US Nazi party" and there were always disputes and fighting in the family about religion. His school performance was poor and he suffered from dyslexia. He left school at the age of 17 and worked in a vegetable shop, as a sampler with a driller, as a driller's hand and in other unofficial drilling positions in the bush. His parents separated and he left his job to look after his mother and brother, both of whom he said suffered from schizophrenia. He worked only in part‑time jobs, mainly driving. He had informally studied theology and science.
The accused told Dr Srna that he had committed the offence alleged against him by reason of a "mental breakdown" because his father was in dispute with one of his girlfriends, and also because he had discovered that his stepbrother was abusing his sister and one of a number of other female inhabitants who lived in the household of his father. He claimed that his sister was being bashed by her boyfriend, and there was some form of departmental conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in relation to his stepbrother. He said that his mother had recently returned from Queensland and that she was deaf, mentally retarded and schizophrenic. He claimed that he had given up a lucrative position to look after her.
Dr Srna ascertained the following information about the accused's possession of the sword:
"He said that he was given sward [sic] and that he took it to church to seal it. He said that he got dressed up got a 'broad sword' from his wall (a decoration that he had allegedly been having hanging there for years) and went to church with his friend. He said that he was scared of god and that he realised that the next seal, the black horse was a statue of a horse he had at home. He said tha [sic] he then got intense thoughts of pale horse, which meant that he would be dead and would go to hell."
The accused gave Dr Srna an account of the circumstances in which he had killed his mother. He said:
"He said that he then heard his mother screaming and that he felt that he would fornicate with her and that god warned him not to. He said that he then heard a message from god telling him 'Kill your mummy for god'. He said that he then thought 'Is there one god or are there 2 gods. Is there a bad god and good god?' He said that he then heard, 'There is one god, kill mother for god. Kill the witch or world would burn. Cover the mayhem'. He said 'I knocked her with the sward' [sic]. He said that he then heard other citings from bible, mostly of threatening nature and that he did not understand why. He said that he now understands that it was in order to condemn himself as well as to condemn the whole planet. He said that he was sorry for killing his mother but that he believed that she is in better place now. He said tha [sic] he had been looking after her for 4 years, that she was at some centre where she was sexually abused by archbishop's nephew who also took money from her. He said that he himself would prefer to be dead and he dispassionately spoke about his future citing passages from bible. He said that he has been thinking about suicide 'a bit'. He said that he would use a chemical or a gun if he had access to either."
The accused concluded by saying to Dr Srna:
"I am an intellectual genius, I am different. I am a highly evolved spiritual entity. I am not from this planet I am fro [sic] a planet called Dahuba. I am from species of Hermaphrodites, I am the original Enoch, I was the original Thomas, and now this is my third reincarnation. I am related to Jesus, if he was alive, he would be with me."
Dr Srna's mental state examination revealed a significant degree of formal thought disorder on the part of the accused. He put it in the following terms:
"He exhibited a significant degree of formal thought disorder including tangentiality, private logic and neologisms. His affect was somewhat blunted, at times incongruent with the thought content and speech content. At times he laughed fatuously. He was grandiose, with air of superiority. He expressed complex, fragmented bizarre persecutory religious and persecutory delusions. He was thoroughly insightless but he exhibited double orientation it [sic] terms of his delusional beliefs."

Conclusions of Dr Srna

Dr Srna concluded that the accused suffers from "Schizophrenic Disorder, Paranoid Type, Chronic" of a most severe degree. It is his opinion that, as at November 2006, the accused's condition was poorly controlled and he continued to be a significant risk to himself and others. The evidence in the case suggested strongly to Dr Srna that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was "profoundly psychotic and psychiatrically unstable".
Although Dr Srna did not say so, it is clear enough that "Schizophrenic Disorder, Paranoid Type, Chronic" of a most severe degree constitutes a "mental impairment" as defined in the Code because it is a mental illness as defined in the Code.
Dr Srna expressed an opinion in relation to the three capacities contained within s 27 of the Code. He was of the view that the accused was not deprived of the ability to understand what he was doing at the time of the alleged offence, but (a) he was deprived by his mental illness of the capacity to control his actions leading to him allegedly committing the offence; and (b) there is substantial evidence that he was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act resulting in the alleged offence.

Opinion of Dr Mircea Schineanu

Dr Mircea Schineanu is a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Frankland Centre, Graylands Hospital. He reported to Ms Andree Horrigan on 30 May 2006 that the accused had been initially referred to Graylands Hospital on 17 October 2005, pursuant to the provisions of s 5 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) on a hospital order. Subsequently, he was admitted as a patient under s 43 and s 49 of the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) for treatment. As at May 2006, he was still under treatment in the Frankland Centre.
Dr Schineanu was provided with a substantial volume of information. It included records of psychiatric examination of the accused on numerous occasions whilst an inpatient at the Frankland Centre, nursing observations, allied help assessments, the statement of material facts from the police brief and the video record of interview, information from the family and acquaintances of the accused, and information from Kalgoorlie Mental Health Services.

Over a period of four months, the accused provided Dr Schineanu with a detailed account of the events of 17 October 2005 and of his mental state before and at the time of the alleged offence. Dr Schineanu quoted in his report a substantial account given to him in March 2006 by the accused of events leading to the commission of the alleged offence. Dr Schineanu described this as "an extraordinary description which reflects his disturbed mind prior [to] and at the time of the offence". Extracts from this account are as follows:
"About five weeks before I handed myself in to the police I suffered a complete mental breakdown. This was due to the fact my father told me my half sister and two other young girls were being sexually abused by her other half brother [M]. I heard a young girl in the house late at night and found used condoms in his room.
I rang my other sister [H] and she reported this abuse to the D.C.S. They rang me up and said the girls had said there was no abuse. I was very worried for them because dad told me [M] also physically abused all the girls.
...
Because of my mental breakdown I felt I needed spiritual support. My best friends father [B] told me not to help people because I wasn't a member of his church. This made me feel cut off and alone. I rang up my other friend [G] and agreed to go to a different church with him. Because I didn't like [B's] preaching and the way he treated people with schizophrenia. I started to read the Bible so I could prove to him he is a hypocrite.
I was at home alone reading the Bible mainly Revelations.
About one week before I handed myself into the police I was convinced that I was the chosen one and that my mother was the Queen of Zion written about in the Book of Revelation. One day before I handed myself in to the police I took my sword to the Church of Christ because 'Go to the place Daniel the Profet [sic] spoke of' was written in Mathew 24. My friend [D] use to tell me of all the ridicule he suffered at the church because of his schizophrenia.
I took my sword because the Bible said: 'To him was given a great sword'. I went alone and I was physically removed from the church and went home. Mum came home the same day. I was stressed out because I felt God wanted me to save the world yet I wasn't sure how he wanted me to do it."
The account given to Dr Schineanu of the events of 17 October 2005 was as follows:
"I was lying in bed at six o'clock. My mind had been taken over by the Book of Revelations. I had read the book many times in the previous weeks and had memorized large sections. I wanted to do what God wanted me to do but I was also afraid of God because there are many threats made by God in the Book of Revelation.
The previous day I went to church with a sword because I believed I was opening the second seal. My friend [G] Robinson drove me in the previous weeks to his church in a red car. There is a red horse and a great sword mentioned in the second seal. The next seal involved judgement and the seal after that involved me becoming death and having hell follow me.
My mind was racing it was like I was high even euphoric except with a good deal of fear mixed in. My mind was moving so fast it was like everything was in fast forward, I could not slow my mind down I had no control over my thoughts. I was in this state of mind when I heard mum yell out. I thought to myself it's her. In the Bible God condemns a false Prophetess who mumbles and babbles and God threatens to cut off from and kill the children with death if the chosen one sleeps with her.
I was thinking about this when a loud thought came into my mind 'Kill mummy for God', 'Is their [sic] one God or is they're [sic] two', 'is there a good God and a bad God'. By this time I was up and in the lounge room, I saw mum through the window bringing the bin in. The thought continued 'There is only one God kill mummy for God'.
I tried to drop the sword because I loved my mum but my fear of God and these powerful thoughts were too overwhelming. I knocked mum over with the sword when she walked through the back doors. She hit her head on the tile floor and was unconscious. I dropped the sword and thought of calling an ambulance when the thought came back louder and stronger, 'Kill the witch or the world will burn' so I grabbed the bread knife from the kitchen and cut her throat.
After I killed my dog the powerful thoughts stopped. I felt I could not think until I cleaned up. I sat down; I heard nothing. I felt lonely and scared then I felt for the first time the doubt that maybe I made the wrong decisions. I waited for three hours but I heard nothing, I felt scared and alone that is why I handed myself into the police."
Dr Schineanu concluded after a mental state examination of the accused on 29 May 2006 that he was suffering from chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type. He described the accused as remorseful, with cognitive functions that appeared well preserved. He had partial insight into his mental illness.
Dr Schineanu's first conclusion was that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused suffered a major mental illness; more specifically, paranoid schizophrenia. He satisfied the criteria for the diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia, using the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia of the World Health Organisation known as ICD 10 (International Classification of Diseases).
Dr Schineanu reached the following conclusions in relation to the three capacities contained within s 27 of the Code:
(a)The accused was not deprived of the capacity to know what he was doing at the time he committed the alleged offence. He knew that he physically assaulted his mother and killed her.
(b)The accused was, at the time of the alleged offence, deprived of the capacity to control his actions. He was suffering from a major mental illness/mental impairment which deprived him of the capacity to make a "wilful decision" in regard to the act that he committed. Implicitly, this deprived him of the capacity to control that act. He was acting under the compulsion of overwhelming psychotic experiences and unable to make a wilful decision. A person subjected to such overwhelming psychotic experiences as those experienced by the accused is not capable of acting voluntarily in the relevant sense.
(c)At the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the accused was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act. He was not capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act. He believed that the act was not wrong because his actions had been guided by a supernatural power that he must obey. He followed the instructions received from the auditory hallucinations he was experiencing.

Oral evidence of Dr Schineanu

In his oral testimony, Dr Schineanu elaborated upon the contents of his report of 30 May 2006. Dr Schineanu confirmed that, in his opinion, the accused was, at the time of the commission of the alleged offences, deprived of both the capacity to control his actions and the capacity to know that he ought not to commit the alleged offence. These, he said, were essentially linked. Dr Schineanu said:
" ... he was deprived of the capacity to recognise that he was holding these abnormal beliefs. He was not aware that they are abnormal beliefs and he was in fact not aware that his behaviour was guided and controlled by his delusion because he believed that that is how and what he should do. In other words, at that time he lacked the combative thinking. He was - he accepted his delusion. He accepted what the voices were saying. He accepted his psychosis without any deliberation, without any triage, without any (indistinct) so for him that was the real life."
Dr Schineanu expanded upon the reasons why he concluded that the accused was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to commit the alleged offence. He said:
"... he was deprived of that capacity because, as I mentioned, all his mental state at that time was such as deprived for him to think rationally. For him at that time, even if he knew probably that to kill the mother was wrong, it was contrary to the law, he believed that he was right in what he was doing and why he was right because he thought that people would regard his act and would expect to do that act. Otherwise, according with his belief, he believed that the God will punish all the world, all the children will die and all the world will come to an end. Due to his illness at that time, he was under a more powerful law then [sic] what is our law and he obeyed his law at that time because he felt that he has to save the world. He obeyed the Lord because at that time what Lord requested was a higher power than what we people have on earth and this has to be understood in connection with all his belief at that time. In fact, Mr Wright believed that he was chosen by God and in fact his belief that he was the real Enoch which in book of Revelation appears that he was, as he explained to me, the seventh direct descendant from Adam, who long ago prophesied to the man that the Lord will come and the holy angels will bring judgment on all and to condemn all for Godless deeds they have performed. So based on his delusion, really he believed that in fact he is the chosen one, he is the really [sic] Enoch which the Bible mentioned. So for him to do what he did it was just to obey the God wishes."
At the conclusion of the examination of Dr Schineanu, I asked him whether he could be confident that the accused was not feigning his condition in any way. The following exchange occurred:
"MILLER J: Just before I turn to Mr Dempster, just one thing I want to ask you. Can you be confident that he couldn't have invented all of this? Can you be confident that he hasn't made it up and chosen to perhaps adopt the book of Revelation and the other passages in the Bible to in some way camouflage what he has done? Can I be confident, can you tell me that one can be confident that this could not possibly be feigned?---Your Honour, in forensic we are always aware about the possibility of malingering and before we write the final diagnosis we turn the case in all sides. We collect information which we don't take it as they are [sic]. We try to corroborate by other information.
Mm'hm?‑‑‑Moreover, the mental state examination - the observation of him for many, many months, in fact it's nearly two years, would exclude by far any suggestion that he was malingering, that he was starting to make up symptoms or to explain his behaviour. In fact our information was that for the last six years or so since he was taken [sic] care of his mother, he provide his mother with good care and there were no animosity between them, so his behaviour appeared somehow to be spontaneous and unpremeditated that morning. Who knows, if his mother at that moment wouldn't make that noise which gave him the full confidence that she is the person who God now wants to get rid of, nothing would happen. So now the diagnosis is a diagnosis which is not only my own conclusion but also we have the benefit of working in Frankland and he has been already under the care of two different colleagues and case conferences which we had in the (indistinct) ‑ ‑ ‑
So it's a unanimous conclusion that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
‑ ‑ ‑ he's got that mental illness, and if it were not so, it would have been uncovered in those couple of years?‑‑‑Definitely, because he's 24‑hour, in fact, supervision. Everything, what is happening, what he's saying, somehow converge to us and we are aware. It's not easy to malinger mental illness for so long period of time and with this kind of symptomatology what he presented [sic]."
The opinion of Dr Schineanu on this point I accept without reservation.

Conclusion

I accept the opinions of both Dr Srna and Dr Schineanu that, at the time of the commission of the offence alleged against him, the accused was in such a state of mental impairment as to deprive him of the capacity to control his actions and the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act he did because it was wrong. These matters have been proven on the balance of probability.
It follows that the accused should be found not guilty on count 1 on the indictment on account of unsoundness of mind. It is unnecessary to consider count 2, which is in the alternative to count 1.
Pursuant to s 147(2) of the Act, I enter a judgment of acquittal of the offence charged in count 1 on the indictment on account of unsoundness of mind of the accused.
Pursuant to s 149(1) of the Act, I am required to deal with the accused under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act. Section 21 of that Act requires me to make a custody order in respect of the accused, and I make that order. The consequence of it is that the accused is to be kept in custody in accordance with the provisions of Pt 5 of that Act. Pursuant to s 24, he is to be detained in an authorised hospital, a declared place, a detention centre or a prison, as determined by the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board, until released by an order of the Governor.