Cornish Re [2007] QMHC 13

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Cornish [2007] QMHC 013 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF PHYLLIS ANNE CORNISH PROCEEDING: Proceeding No 0212 of 2006 DELIVERED ON: 19 July 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 19 July 2007 JUDGE: Philippides J ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr Wood Dr Lawrence FINDINGS AND ORDER: 1. The defendant was of unsound mind as described in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offence CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with a bomb hoax – whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time the offence was allegedly committed – whether forensic order should be made COUNSEL: Ms C Morgan for the Defendant Mr W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health Ms C Kelly for the Director of Public Prosecutions SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [1] PHILIPPIDES J: Phyllis Anne Cornish, is charged with one count of a bomb hoax on 1 June 2006. The circumstances relating to the alleged offence are that on 1 June 2006 a switch operator at the Ipswich General Hospital received a telephone call from a female person saying, “There have been two bombs planted in the hospital. Have a nice day.” [2] The call was taken seriously. Police were contacted and there was a great deal of inconvenience caused as a result of having to evacuate and search the hospital premises and also because ambulances had to be diverted to other hospitals. A call was also made soon after the bomb hoax was made to a Doctor who had been treating the defendant's adopted son. The call contained some threatening conversation. It seems that the defendant had become very distressed as a result of -- 1 of 2 -- 2 what she perceived to be poor treatment of her son by the hospital staff. The defendant had unofficially adopted her son, Christopher, when he was nine years of age. He had many difficulties, including learning problems. At some stage he also had a brain tumour and eventually had to be placed into nursing care. [3] The defendant was devoted to her son and she was very distressed with respect to aspects of his treatment. Unfortunately, it appears that there were communication difficulties between the defendant and staff at the hospital and relationships between them became very strained and eventually broke down. It also appears that one of the Doctors treating her son or one of the staff, at least, indicated to the defendant that he would be unable to come home because of his condition and this seems to have been the final straw that broke the camel's back, as it were. [4] Dr Fama supports a defence of unsoundness of mind, on the basis that, given the defendant's natural mental infirmity (she was tested to have an IQ of 59), in the circumstances that pertained at the time she was deprived of the capacity to know that she was not to do the act. [5] Dr Chalk gave a report where he opined that the defendant may have had a deprivation of that relevant capacity. He expressed some reservation, stating “I do not think that it is clear,” that there was a deprivation of the capacity to know. In giving oral evidence, however, Dr Chalk, indicated that there was a good deal of material that he had not had access to at the time of giving that opinion and that he now is of the view that because of the defendant's natural mental infirmity, in the circumstances that presented at the time of the alleged offence, she was, indeed, deprived of the capacity to know that she ought not to do the act. [6] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that at the relevant time the defendant was of unsound mind. Dr Fama has indicated in a lengthy report that he does not consider that in the exceptional circumstances of this case a forensic order is appropriate. That view is endorsed by the assisting psychiatrists. I do not consider, in the circumstances, that a forensic order should be made. -- 2 of 2 --