Atkinson, Re [2006] QMHC 11

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Atkinson [2006] QMHC 011 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF ADAM JOHN ATKINSON PROCEEDING NO: No 0089 of 2005 DELIVERED ON: 3 February 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 3 February 2006 JUDGE: ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Holmes J Dr J F Wood Dr D A Grant FINDINGS AND ORDER: 1. The defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence of entering premises with intent 2. The defendant was not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence of possession of a dangerous drug 3. In relation to the charge of possession of a dangerous drug, the defendant is fit for trial and the charge should proceed according to law CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant found inside golf club crawling down corridor early one morning – where he expressed various ideas about his reasons for being there – where he had a past history of amphetamine use – whether he had a delusional disorder - whether defendant was of unsound mind – whether he is fit for trial Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), Section 27 Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2 COUNSEL: Mr J Farmer for the defendant Mr J Tate for the Director of Mental Health Mr C Heaton 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] HOLMES J: Mr Atkinson is charged with entering premises with intent and possession of a dangerous drug on the 24th of December 2002. He was found at around 5.30am on that day by a gardener at the Royal Queensland Golf Club who -- 1 of 3 -- 2 reported seeing a man crawling down a corridor on his hands and knees, apparently to avoid alarm sensors. The gardener told Mr Atkinson to come with him and Mr Atkinson started to do so but he then told the gardener just to call the police, and returned into the building. A security officer who then arrived at the scene approached him and asked him what he was doing. Mr Atkinson replied, "Waiting for you". [2] The police arrived. Mr Atkinson was interviewed. He gave the police an account of being followed by several people in cars whom he had noticed at Boondall on his way to Coolum. He had turned around at Caloundra and headed back to Brisbane. At some point, he arrived outside the golf club on this account, left his car, jumped the fence, and got on to the roof. He got there at about 11pm at night and stayed there through the night. In the early hours of the morning, he jumped through the ceiling. Some loose change he had been found with by the security guard, he said, had come from his wallet. He thought he might have been followed because he assaulted someone. [3] Mr Atkinson has continued to offer that account consistently in subsequent interviews. He saw Mr Morgan, a psychologist in May 2004 and gave that account. He repeated it to Dr Fama in February 2005 and to Dr Chalk, who has given a report, in September 2005. Both Mr Morgan and Dr Fama considered that Mr Atkinson was suffering from a delusional disorder. Dr Chalk, on the other hand does not accept the authenticity of the experiences recounted by Mr Atkinson, and considers that he has, and had at the relevant time, no mental illness. [4] There is, I think, a distinct possibility that these actions of Mr Atkinson were the product of a single isolated drug induced episode, so that there were genuine delusions involved, but not sustained ones. One entertains that possibility because of his past history of amphetamine use, largely, together with the suggestion in the report of Dr Garrone that his involvement in the "heavy drug scene", as he put it, had not ceased since some time prior to 2005. [5] But that is largely speculative and does not find any support in the evidence of any of the witnesses who dealt with him on the morning in question, nor is it the primary view of either psychiatrist. The issue, as presented by them, is whether one accepts that he had a mental illness. The difficulty with Dr Chalk's views, as I said, is that he assumes that Mr Atkinson's story had no foundation at all. That is hard to reconcile with the circumstances of the alleged offending; as has been pointed out from all quarters. This could not have been a rational exercise in breaking and entering. Mr Atkinson's car was left outside in plain view. The means of entry into the premises was not well thought out to say the least, and it is of some significance, I think, that he has no criminal history for anything similar at all. It is unusual, in my experience, for somebody to embark on a career in breaking and entering in middle age. Dr Chalk, though, does not seem to perceive the events as bizarre. I have difficulty seeing them as anything else. [6] On the other hand, Dr Fama's views are based on self-report by Mr Atkinson, in essence. There does not seem to have been any other manifestation of bizarre behaviour. He has not come to anyone's attention at any other time for anything similar. Nor, indeed, has he sought treatment; nor has anyone close to him seen the need for him to have treatment. He seems to have remained in employment. Another reason for some cynicism is that Mr Atkinson has a good deal to lose by a -- 2 of 3 -- 3 conviction because he faces the prospect of a suspended sentence. I must say, the lack of collateral support for his account troubles me. On the other hand, Dr Fama is a forensic psychiatrist of great experience and he is entirely convinced of the authenticity of the mental experiences relayed to him by Mr Atkinson. [7] Dr Wood, in surveying the evidence, points out that Dr Fama's assessment ties in with what was observed by the psychologist, Mr Morgan earlier in 2004; that Dr Reinders, who also saw Mr Atkinson, on referral from, or on the advice of Dr Fama, accepted that Mr Atkinson may have had a delusional disorder; and that Mr Atkinson's condition may have changed by the time he saw Dr Chalk. Dr Grant, too, considers the behaviour consistent with delusional disorder and observes that there is some evidence of continuing paranoid symptoms. [8] In all the circumstances, I think that the evidence and my assessment of it points to a finding on the balance of probabilities that Mr Atkinson was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the act of breaking and entering by a mental illness, that is, a delusional disorder. [9] That is not the case in relation to the charge of possession of a dangerous drug. Assuming that he had the delusions described, there is no possible operation on his possession of the drug. The fact that, as Dr Fama said, he may, in fact, have been preoccupied and diverted from consideration of his possession of the drug, does not mean he was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not to have it. It was not the focus of any delusion. I see no basis to suppose that he was deprived of any relevant capacity in relation to possession of the dangerous drug. [10] I find therefore, he was of sound mind when he possessed that drug. He is fit for trial and that charge ought to proceed according to law. [11] I am satisfied, given the nature of the episode which precipitated the charge, and the fact that Mr Atkinson has resisted any suggestions of treatments since that time, that a forensic order is warranted. -- 3 of 3 --