Batt, Re [2005] QMHC 29

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Batt [2005] QMHC 029 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN RESPECT OF VICTOR ROBERT BATT PROCEEDING NO: 0058 of 2004 DELIVERED ON: 20 April 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 20 April 2005 JUDGE: ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Holmes J Dr J F Wood Dr D A Grant FINDINGS AND ORDER: 1. The defendant was not of unsound mind as defined in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2 at the time of the alleged offence. 2. The defendant was not of diminished responsibility, as defined in the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), at the time of the alleged offence. 3. The defendant is fit for trial. 4. The proceedings for the alleged offence are to be continued according to law. CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – where defendant charged with the murder of his wife – where the defendant claimed to have experienced what felt like an epileptic fit at the time of the shooting – whether, at the time of the alleged offence, the defendant was deprived of the capacity to understand what he was doing, or the capacity of control, or the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act. Criminal Code Act (Qld), s 27, 304A Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), schedule 2 COUNSEL: Ms C Morgan for the defendant Mr W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health Mr R Pointing for the Director of Public Prosecutions SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant The Crown Solicitor for the Director of Mental Health The Director of Public Prosecutions [1] HOLMES J: I will give some reasons. Because of the history of the matter, I think it appropriate to do so. Mr Batt is charged with the murder of his wife on 29 January 2003. That charge proceeded to trial in March 2004. The Crown evidence, heavily summarised, was to the effect that on the evening of Mrs Batt's death, neighbours had heard a woman and child screaming. The woman was screaming, -- 1 of 3 -- 2 "Get out of my house" and on one account had also said, "Don't threaten me with a gun." Evidence was given that that night Mr Batt had said to a friend that he had received a letter wanting child support and a demand for money from his wife's solicitor and he had said, "I'm going to shoot the bitch." [2] At the trial it was admitted that he had fired the fatal shots. Mrs Batt sustained a gunshot wound on the right side of her head behind her ear. When the police arrived, Mr Batt, it was said, admitted to them, "I just shot my wife." and said, "I'm sorry." He was asked how many times he had fired the gun and he answered, "Only once." [3] The child was interviewed on video tape. She said her mother had screamed for help and her father had shot her. Mr Batt was interviewed that night. He spoke to the police about receiving the solicitor's bill, that his wife had hung up on the telephone. He said that he had got cranky. He told them about the marriage break- up. [4] The weapon used in the shooting was a 22 pistol with a silencer. The evidence given by way of a report from a forensic weapons specialist was that it was not prone to discharge without operation of the trigger and the minimum trigger pressure required was 1.4 kilograms, slightly above the norm, which is 1.1 kilograms. [5] At trial, Mr Batt said that he had, on the evening in question, drunk some five to seven glasses of wine. That he had been in the middle of cooking dinner on his boat. His next recollection was driving to his wife's house and then things were a blank until he was standing inside. He had no recollection of taking his gun. His next recall, he said, was of reaching for his daughter and the gun going off and he thought he had accidentally squeezed the trigger. He explained that in his teens and twenties he had suffered from epileptic fits. He said this felt like an epileptic fit standing up. At another point, however, he said that he had no recall of the gun going off at all. [6] Dr James had given a report prior to trial in which he took a history from Mr Batt that things were blank to him after arrival at his wife's house until his daughter asked, "Why did you shoot mummy?". Dr James raised the possibility of an altered state of consciousness as a result of epilepsy. At trial Dr James said it was possible that a person could have an epileptic fit producing a dissociative state in which, in effect, the sufferer would act as an automaton. The account to him, he said, had been of a blank in the memory for the shooting. Effectively, Dr James's evidence raised the possibility of s 27 unsoundness of mind or alternatively s 304, diminished responsibility. [7] I should say that Dr Allan had given a report in March 2004 in which he said it was very unlikely on the history that there had been an altered state of consciousness or a fugue state, but he had not examined Mr Batt. [8] Dr Reddan has done so. She gave a report on 15 November 2004. Her view was that the actions of Mr Batt on the night in question were inconsistent with epilepsy, that there was no defence under s 304A or s 27 and that he was fit for trial. [9] Dr Boyle, a neurologist, gave a report on 16 November 2004. I should mention here that an electroencephalogram of August 2003 had proved normal. Dr Boyle said that the history was not suggestive that Mr Batt had suffered epilepsy over the preceding 30 years. It was inconceivable that such a prolonged and coordinated series of activities could have been enacted in an epileptic state. [10] Dr Fama gave a report on 27 December 2004. He said that Mr Batt's actions in -- 2 of 3 -- 3 driving to the house with a loaded pistol appeared to have been purposeful, that there were no subsequent signs of confusion or bewilderment consistent with an epileptic fit. He considered that there was no unsoundness or abnormality of mind displayed and that Mr Batt was fit for trial. [11] Dr James has given a further report dated 24 March 2005. He said in the first instance, the alcohol consumption by Mr Batt on the night in question would raise an issue of intoxication which, of itself, would exclude a defence of unsoundness; although I do note that at trial he had considered that Mr Batt's tolerance to alcohol would mean that severe intoxication was an unlikely element. Dr James, at any rate, said that the possibility of an impaired capacity was a very small possibility. He pointed out that there was no clear diagnosis of epilepsy and it seemed unlikely, given the normal electroencephalogram. He considered Mr Batt fit for trial. [12] I accept the evidence of Drs Allan, Reddan, Boyle and Fama that Mr Batt's actions on the night in question are inconsistent with any sort of epileptic state such as to deprive Mr Batt of, or impair his relevant capacities. I find that he was not of unsound mind and I find that he was not suffering from diminished responsibility. The matter should proceed according to law. [13] I should also say that I have no jurisdiction to make a non-contact order of the kind sought by the deceased’s sister, in light of the findings that I have made. -- 3 of 3 --