Broome Re [2007] QMHC 35

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Broome [2007] QMHC 35 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH IN RESPECT OF JADIE BROOME PROCEEDING: No 0128 of 2006 DELIVERED ON: 19 April 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 19 April 2007 JUDGE: Philippides J ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr J F Wood Dr J M Lawrence FINDINGS AND ORDERS: 1. The defendant was not of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the alleged offences. 2. The defendant is fit for trial. 3. Proceedings against the defendant be continued according to law. 4. The defendant be detained pursuant to s 273(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) in the Sunshine Coast and Gympie District Authorised Mental Health Service until granted bail under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) or brought before a Court for continuing the proceedings. CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with various offences – where defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia – where defendant has longstanding history of polysubstance abuse – where three days prior to the alleged offences the defendant had been diagnosed as free from psychosis – where evidence that the defendant had been using illicit drugs up until the time of the alleged offences – whether the defendant was deprived of any of the relevant capacities at the time of the alleged offences – whether the deprivation was to any extent a result of intentional intoxication – whether the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences – whether a custody order should be made pursuant to s 273(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 273(1)(b), Schedule 2 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 COUNSEL: J Farmer for the defendant W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health C Kelly for The Director of Public Prosecutions SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [1] PHILIPPIDES J: Jadie Broome is charged with a number of offences. There are two counts in respect of alleged offences on 15 December 2005, being unlawfully driving a motor vehicle and committing a public nuisance. There are also two charges in respect of offences alleged to have been committed on 17 December 2005, creating a disturbance in premises and obstructing police. In addition, there are three counts relating to offences alleged to have occurred on 11 January 2006, public nuisance and two assault or obstructing police charges. Further, there are three charges concerning offences alleged to have been committed on 5 April 2006, being robbery with actual violence, assault occasioning bodily harm and breach of probation. [2] There is no dispute that the defendant suffers from chronic psychotic illness, namely paranoid schizophrenia. There is also before the Court clear evidence of a very long-standing history of polysubstance abuse. The question before the Court essentially is whether the defendant was, at the relevant times, deprived of any of the relevant capacities because of the mental illness and whether intoxication played a role in her state of mind at the relevant times. [3] As to the offences alleged to have occurred in December 2005, Dr Miles, in his report, observed that, three days prior to the alleged offences the defendant had been discharged free from psychosis. In those circumstances he considered it was unlikely that, in the absence of illicit substances, her schizophrenic psychosis would have relapsed at the relevant times and that on the balance of probabilities intoxication was a factor. In this regard I note that the defendant reported to Dr Miles that from mid-December until the time of the alleged offences in April 2006 she was using a number of illicit substances. She referred to using 10 to 20 cones of cannabis daily and also using alcohol in substantial quantities daily, using amphetamines, morphine and benzodiazepines. [4] In relation to the other offences, Dr Miles considered that there was at the relevant times most likely a deprivation of the three capacities, but he accepted that the deprivation was most likely due to a combination of mental illness and intoxication. [5] Dr Kingswell was unable to conclude on the history that had been provided to him that there was any deprivation at the relevant times, but in any event his opinion was that intoxication was, on the balance of probabilities, likely to have been a significant factor in her state at the relevant times. [6] In the circumstances, I find that the defendant was not of unsound mind at the time of any of the alleged offences. The defendant is fit for trial and the proceedings will continue according to law. [7] It is appropriate, however, that a custody order be made requiring the defendant's detention in the Sunshine Coast and Gympie District Authorised Mental Health -- 2 of 3 -- 3 Service until she is granted bail under the Bail Act 1980 or she is brought before a Court for continuing the proceedings. [8] I note that in relation to the custody order contained in the submissions from the Director of Mental Health there is a submission that limited community treatment be approved in the nature of escorted leave on the grounds of the hospital. There is, however, some history even when in the presence of a staff member. In those circumstances, I am disinclined to approve limited community treatment presently. -- 3 of 3 --