Daylight, Re [2010] QMHC 18

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Daylight [2010] QMHC 018 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF ELGAN GEORGE DAYLIGHT PROCEEDING: No 275 of 2010 DELIVERED ON: 9 September 2010 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 9 September 2010 JUDGE: Philippides J ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr J Chalk Dr E N McVie FINDINGS AND ORDER: 1. That at the time of the alleged offences the subject of the reference the defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld); 2. That the defendant be detained as a forensic patient at the Toowoomba authorised Mental Health Service; 3. Approval of limited community treatment on the conditions stated in the submission from the Director of Mental Health; 4. A confidentiality order be made. CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with unlawful wounding – where defendant has significant psychiatric history – where defendant suffers from schizophrenia and other conditions – whether defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2 COUNSEL: J Briggs for the Defendant J Tate for the Director of Mental Health A Lossberg 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) -- 1 of 3 -- 2 PHILIPPIDES J: [1] Elgan George Daylight is charged with unlawful wounding on 23 May 2009. The issue of the defendant's mental state at the relevant time has been referred to this Court. [2] The events in question occurred at the Baillie Henderson Hospital where the defendant was an involuntary patient. It appears that the incident in question concerned the defendant seeking medication, with the complainant responding and advising the defendant to wait until after dinner (which was only some 15 minutes later). The defendant became upset and overturned a table and returned to his room. Subsequently, the complainant went to the defendant's bedroom with the intention of offering the medication, but the defendant responded saying, “You can stick your medication. I'm going to stab you”. He slammed the door and a short while later (about three minutes later) the defendant went up to the complainant and without warning stabbed the complainant with a ballpoint pen, causing some injury. [3] It is clear that the defendant has a very substantial psychiatric history. He was charged with murder of a relative, but in 1993 was acquitted of that offence and found guilty of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. He served some five years’ imprisonment at the end of which period the defendant’s mental condition had deteriorated to such an extent that a diagnosis of schizophrenia was made in 1997. [4] The defendant was admitted to the Rockhampton Hospital and subsequently in 1999 transferred to the Baillie Henderson Hospital. He was initially placed in the Jacaranda unit but required transfer to the Ridley Unit because of continuing aggressive behaviour. He has now required treatment in the Medium Secure Unit for some eight years. [5] Dr Thompson has been involved in the care of the defendant since his placement in the Ridley Unit. It is apparent that, in addition to a chronic and treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the defendant suffers from other conditions as outlined in Dr Thompson's report, including alcoholism with consequent brain damage, depression, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes and polydipsia. In his reports and in the evidence given to the Court by Dr Thompson, Dr Thompson has chronicled a history of the defendant engaging in aggressive behaviour, in particular conduct involving stabbing or threatening to stab others, which appears to reflect an exacerbation in the defendant's condition. Dr Thompson also reported that the defendant had a belief system involving delusional and persecutory thinking, including that he was being monitored by a police scanner housed at the Brisbane Watch-house, and that that was associated, at times, with auditory hallucinations. [6] It appears from Dr Thompson's evidence that a deprivation of the capacity to understand cannot be maintained. However, Dr Thompson opined that there was a deprivation of the capacities of control and of knowing that the defendant ought not to do the acts in question. In that regard, Dr Thompson stated in his report: “In my opinion he was deprived of his capacity to control his actions on this occasion and I think that there is a very clear history of repeated episodes of rage and attacking other individuals and this was another episode of this. With respect to his capacity to know -- 2 of 3 -- 3 that he ought not do the act, I do think that he was so deprived as he is so psychotic and functioning at so low a level.” [7] In reaching this view, Dr Thompson was clearly aware of the applicable test set out in the authorities for a finding of deprivation of the capacity to know. I found Dr Thompson’s evidence persuasive and note that he maintained his opinion although questioned closely, and explained his view of deprivation of capacity to know in terms of the defendant's chaotic thinking at the time. [8] I note that Dr Venugopalan in his reports initially put forward a differing view concerning deprivation of capacity and did not support a finding of unsoundness of mind. It is clear, however, that Dr Venugopalan only saw the defendant on one occasion, during which the defendant presented as very guarded. It is apparent that Dr Venugopalan had difficulty in accessing the defendant’s thinking, nor was he able to elicit any symptoms of schizophrenia, although Dr Venugopalan did not dispute that the defendant suffers from schizophrenia. [9] The difference in opinion offered to the Court stems entirely from Dr Venugopalan's inability to access the defendant's thinking and in particular in relation to the issue of deprivation of capacity. I note that Dr Venugopalan recognised this and expressly deferred to Dr Thompson's opinion on the issue of deprivation. [10] In those circumstances, I accept the uncontroverted evidence of Dr Thompson that the defendant was of unsound mind at the relevant time and I note that both the assisting psychiatrists support the opinion offered by Dr Thompson. [11] As to future management, it is appropriate that a forensic order be made in the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind the serious nature of the charged offence, the clear and significant ongoing treatment needs of the defendant and the need to protect the community. [12] Accordingly, I order that the defendant be detained in the Toowoomba authorised Mental Health Service. I approve limited community treatment on a graduated basis at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist on the following conditions: that the patient reside at the Ridley Medium Secure Unit of Baillie Henderson Hospital, and that he be accorded escorted on and off the hospital grounds leave only, on the conditions stated in the submission from the Director of Mental Health. [13] In relation to the material provided by the complainant I make a confidentiality order. -- 3 of 3 --