Castle, Re [2009] QMHC 25

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Castle [2009] QMHC 025 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF TIMOTHY MICHAEL CASTLE FILE NO/S: No 230 of 2008 DELIVERED ON: 11 February 2009 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 11 February 2009 JUDGE: Philippides J ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr J Lawrence Dr E McVie FINDINGS AND ORDER: 1. That at the time of all alleged offences between 25 November 2007 and 3 March 2008 the defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld); 2. That defendant be detained as a forensic patient in the Prince Charles Authorised Mental Health Service; 3. Limited community treatment is not approved. CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with enter dwelling with intent at night, assault occasioning bodily harm, wilful damage, contravene direction or requirement, commit public nuisance, assault or obstruct police officer, beg for money or goods in a public place, wilful damage to property without consent, enter premises and commit indictable offence, assault occasioning bodily harm while in company, torture, demanding property, benefit or performance of service with threat, stealing – where issue as to burden of proof necessary to support finding of unsoundness of mind – where intoxication not a material factor in the commission of offences – where limited community treatment not appropriate – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of those offences Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2 COUNSEL: Mr J Briggs for the defendant Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health Mr D Finch for the Director of Public Prosecutions -- 1 of 3 -- 2 SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) PHILIPPIDES J: [1] Timothy Michael Castle is charged with 18 offences ranging from the period from November 2007 to March 2008. They are contained on the schedule of offences which will Exhibit 1. There is no dispute of fact in relation to any of the alleged offences. [2] The defendant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2005 at the Maryborough Mental Health Unit. In her report to the Court, Dr Van de Hoef also confirmed a diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia. It is also apparent that the defendant has had cannabis abuse and dependence disorders for some time. [3] Dr Van de Hoef, both in her report and in her evidence given today, supported a defence in relation to all of the offences on the basis that at the relevant times the defendant suffered from a mental illness, namely paranoid Schizophrenia and was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the acts the subject of the offences. Dr Van de Hoef noted the varying evidence of intoxication in relation to the alleged offences but was of the firm opinion that intoxication was not causative, nor a contributory factor in relation to the state of mind resulting in deprivation of the capacity to know. [4] The counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions conceded, in relation to the 3rd of March 2008 offences, that the record of interview between the defendant and the police officers supported a finding of unsoundness. However, it was contended that the evidence in relation to the remaining offences was not sufficient to support a finding of unsoundness of mind. The submission was made primarily in the light of various clinical entries that were referred to Dr Van de Hoef for her comment. [5] The following points ought to be made in relation to the contention raised on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Firstly, it is fair to say that some of the notations referred to in the clinical material reflect a focus directed more to the question of whether the Mental Health Act requirements necessary for an involuntary treatment order were met. Secondly, the notations were made focusing on the time period when the defendant presented and the author of the notations did not have the considerable benefit that Dr Van de Hoef had of looking at the mental health picture of the defendant from a longitudinal perspective. I am mindful of the approach outlined in cases such as Schafferius and Kamali in relation to the issue of satisfaction of proof of mental illness resulting in deprivation justifying a finding of unsoundness of mind. But, bearing that approach in mind, I am satisfied on the basis of the expert evidence given by Dr Van de Hoef that a finding of unsoundness of mind ought to be made in relation to all of the alleged defences. [6] In respect of the issue of future management I am satisfied, having regard to the serious nature of the alleged offences, the obvious ongoing treatment needs of the defendant and the need to protect the community that a forensic order is required. I -- 2 of 3 -- 3 order that the defendant be detained in the Prince Charles Hospital Authorised Mental Health Service. [7] At this stage and, having heard what the assisting psychiatrists have to say, I consider that it would be preferable not to approve limited community treatment in any form. It is apparent that a full assessment will be required and, in my view, the appropriate course is that the matter be reviewed before the Mental Health Review Tribunal which will have the benefit of such an assessment prior to considering the issue of limited community treatment. -- 3 of 3 --