DPP v Taleski [2007] VSC 183

(1) The defence of mental impairment is established for a person charged with an offence if, at the time of engaging in conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that-

(a) he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or

(b) he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is, he or she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).

(2) If the defence of mental impairment is established, the person must be found not guilty because of mental impairment."

3 Where the prosecution and the defence agree that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, the trial judge may hear the evidence, and if satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment may direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded: s 21(4) of the Act.

4 In R v Sebalj[1] Smith J held that "mental impairment" in s 20 means no more and no less than "a disease of the mind" as that concept was used in the common law M'Naughten defence of insanity. This interpretation was affirmed by Bongiorno J in R v Martin.[2] I propose to adopt it also.

5 It is common ground that the present case falls under s 20(1)(b) of the Act (ie that the defendant did not know that the conduct was wrong etc) as distinct from s 20(1)(a) (that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the conduct).

Factual circumstances

6 The facts of this matter were outlined by Mr Horgan SC (who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions) by reference mainly to a filed written summary of the prosecution case. The accuracy of that account was attested to by the informant, Detective Senior Constable McCann, with no objection from Mr Backwell, counsel for the defendant.

7 On Saturday 4 March 2006, police attended at a carpark situated in Douglas Parade, Spotswood in relation to a multiple stabbing. At this location the body of the deceased Benjamin John Rootes was located adjacent to a chain mesh fence.

8 Two other victims, Lee Hallam and Scott Howard, had been conveyed to hospital with life threatening injuries resulting from stab wounds. Mr Hallam has fully recovered from his injuries but Mr Howard has not. Mr Howard now has only limited use of his right arm.

9 The deceased, Mr Rootes, was born in Hobart, Tasmania on 8 August 1975 to parents Trevor and Margret. Mr Rootes was the eldest of three children, being the brother to Megan and Joshua.

10 Mr Rootes grew up in Tasmania and attained a successful pass in Year 12 before entering the workforce. He undertook various forms of employment, including employment in the hospitality industry, through to his last employment as a customer care manager at a call centre.

11 Mr Rootes was known as an avid reader, who loved animals. He has been described by his peers and family as a Good Samaritan who was always willing to help the less fortunate. He had an excellent sense of humour which enticed people to be his friend.

12 The defendant, John Taleski, was born on 19 July 1977 at the Footscray Hospital. Mr Taleski has spent his entire life residing in the Footscray area. He is the eldest of two siblings to parents, Sterre and Leftere.

13 Mr Taleski left school at the age of 16. He undertook various forms of employment including truck driving and labouring at a meat works and at various factories in the western suburbs.

14 In 1998 Mr Taleski was married and fathered one child. In mid 2000 he separated from his wife and later officially divorced. He did not have a reported history of mental illness prior to the events in question.

15 On Saturday 4 March 2006, at about 3.00 pm, the deceased (Mr Rootes), in the company of his two friends, Mr Hallam and Mr Howard, set off on a walk along the Maribyrnong River from Kensington. They arrived in the Spotswood area. After a brief rest they agreed to continue walking on to Williamstown for a refreshment.

16 They continued along a pathway which led them to a carpark opposite the Scienceworks Museum. As the three walked through the carpark they observed the defendant seated in his green Ford Falcon sedan. The victims walked a further ten metres past the defendant's vehicle before hearing a car door close behind them. The three victims sensed that something was not right and stopped to look at an information board.

17 While the victims were standing facing this board, Mr Hallam heard footsteps stop immediately behind him before feeling two blows to his back. As he turned to see where the blows had come from he observed the defendant. The defendant was in possession of a large knife which by then he was using to stab Mr Howard to the upper body.

18 Both Mr Hallam and Mr Howard fled the immediate vicinity and while running Mr Hallam observed Mr Howard to be covered in blood. He then inspected his own body and observed his shirt to be saturated in blood. Both victims then attempted to flag down passing motorists in an attempt to notify emergency services. At this time Mr Hallam turned around to see where the deceased was and observed the defendant leaning over the deceased thrusting his right arm towards his upper body.

19 Mr Hallam and Mr Howard continued to attempt to stop passing motorists for a short period of time before one stopped. When this motorist stopped, Mr Hallam observed the defendant's Ford sedan leave the carpark. Mr Hallam told this motorist that he had been stabbed before pointing out the defendant's car. The motorist then attempted to pursue the defendant, but to no avail.

20 Mr Hallam and Mr Howard were provided first aid by passers-by before being treated by attending paramedics. They were then conveyed to hospital with life threatening injuries. Mr Rootes died at the scene.

21 On Monday 6 March 2006, police attended at the defendant's residence in Seddon in an endeavour to speak with him about the incident. The defendant's parents informed police that they had not sighted him since the previous day.

22 Later that evening the defendant was intercepted for speeding by highway police patrolling the Calder Highway. When asked why he was speeding, the defendant told police that he was on his way to a police station to confess to the killing and the stabbings. He said that he had had a vision telling him to do it. The defendant was then handcuffed and conveyed to Gisborne Police Station for interview.

23 The defendant was there interviewed by the police in the form of a record of interview, relatively briefly. After a while it became apparent that he was unfit to be interviewed further. In that interview he told the police that on that Monday he had gone fishing at Lake Eppalock and had been sitting there waiting "for a vision to happen". He said that this did not occur and that he left after a while.

24 Mr Taleski confirmed the conversation that he had earlier had with the highway police, where he had said, in relation to the killing and the stabbings, "I had a vision telling me to do it". He said that the weapon was under the seat of his car and that there was also an axe in the boot of the car (and indeed this was so). When asked to explain the vision he said: "I can't explain it".

25 When asked whether he suffered from any form of illness he said: "Not that I know of". He said he was feeling better when the police spoke to him. He said he knew what he was doing.

26 Asked for more information about the events of Saturday 4 March, Mr Taleski said: "I don't know the time that I arrived, all I know is the night before I had a dream. I woke up with a vision that had two blokes and a boy and I seen a, what's-a-me-call, a bridge with water. I went there. I assumed that would have been the Westgate Bridge. I went there, parked it, and waited for two blokes and a boy to rock up. They rocked up and I did what I did". He was asked: "All right, what did you do?" He said: "Put them where they belong, put them in hell". When asked "How did you go about that?", he said: "Just grabbed a knife and off I went".

27 There were further questions and answers as follows:

"How do you know they were the right people? --- I'd seen a sign on him.

A sign? --- Yes.

What did the sign say? --- It was just a sign, that's all it was.

Can you describe the sign? --- Not really."

28 Additional detailed material bearing on the state of the defendant's mind as at the time of the killing is contained in the medical reports to which I will come.

29 An autopsy was performed on the deceased on the night of 4 March. He died from two stab wounds, one to the right side of the chest, which was 180 mm in length, and the other to the left upper arm which then penetrated the chest wall for some 200 mm.

30 The defendant was sent to the Melbourne Assessment Prison on 6 March 2006. On 9 March 2006, ie five days after the offence, he was assessed at the Acute Admissions Unit of the Melbourne Assessment Prison by a consultant psychiatrist for Forensicare, Dr Debra Wood. Dr Wood concluded that the was suffering from a psychotic illness. He was transferred as a security patient under s 16(3)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1986 to Thomas Embling Hospital on 16 March 2006.

31 At Thomas Embling Hospital the defendant was initially under the care of consultant psychiatrist Dr Grant Lester and then came under the care of Dr Douglas Bell from 31 March 2006. Dr Bell is a consultant forensic psychiatrist and Assistant Clinical Director at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. Dr Bell was Mr Taleski's treating psychiatrist from 31 March 2006 until his return to prison on 24 August 2006. Dr Bell interviewed Mr Taleski more recently on 28 March 2007 at Port Phillip Prison.

The expert medical evidence

32 Dr Bell prepared a report dated 28 March 2007 as to Mr Taleski's fitness to stand trial and as to whether he had available to him a defence under s 20 of the Act. For the purposes of the report Dr Bell had had the benefit of numerous observations he had made of Mr Taleski while he was under his care at the Thomas Embling Hospital. Dr Bell also had regard to a report dated 15 January 2007 of another consulting psychiatrist, Dr Danny Sullivan, who had been engaged by the legal representatives for Mr Taleski. Both reports were received in evidence by consent. Dr Bell confirmed his report in the witness box. He also said that, in broad terms, he agreed with the report of Dr Sullivan. I direct that both reports remain on the file.

33 Dr Bell expressed the view in his report, and confirmed in the witness box, that Mr Taleski was fit to stand trial. I accept that evidence and I find accordingly. After a careful and detailed consideration of Mr Taleski's history, Dr Bell concluded his report as follows:

"Mr. Taleski has a severe paranoid schizophrenic illness, the symptoms of which first developed in late 2005. This consisted of auditory and visual hallucinations which he believed to be emanating from God and on account of which he formed the delusion that he was 'the chosen one', whose mission was to destroy evil people as commanded by God. He was seized of the incorrigibly held delusional belief that it was his destiny to kill victims that had been identified through his visions and that if he did not obey the command of God he himself would suffer eternal damnation in hell. There is no doubt that at the time of the offence Mr. Taleski was so severely afflicted by his illness as to hold with unassailable certainty that his actions were both right and necessary. This certitude persisted for the first few months of his admission to Thomas Embling Hospital. Now, although his symptoms have greatly diminished, he has residual persisting religiose delusional beliefs about his victims and about the origins of his visions and voices. There is in my view little room for doubt that at the time of the attack on his victims. Mr. Taleski was severely mentally ill such that although he knew at a basic level the nature and quality of his actions, that is, that he was stabbing them with an intention of killing them, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong, that is he could not reason regarding the wrongfulness of his behaviour as perceived by reasonable people with a moderate degree of sense and composure."

34 As already indicated, Dr Sullivan's conclusion was to much the same effect. He made a definite diagnosis that Mr Taleski had developed paranoid schizophrenia. Although Mr Taleski had had a long history of multiple drug abuse, Dr Sullivan considered that because his symptoms were protracted and not related temporally to substance use, there were no grounds to believe that his diagnosis was of a drug-induced psychosis.[3]

35 In the witness box, Dr Bell summarised his conclusion as follows:

"Mr Taleski's state of mind at the time of the offence was such that he was profoundly disturbed and in a very overwhelming and tragic way was seized of a series of bizarre delusional beliefs associated with auditory and visual hallucinations ... and that he was so overwhelmingly seized of those beliefs that at the time he was incapable of in any way exercising any degree of moral reasoning regarding the wrongfulness of those beliefs."

Victim Impact Statements

36 Victim impact statements of Scott Howard, Lee Hallam, Leigh Dixon (the deceased's aunt and Godmother), Margaret Rootes (the deceased's mother), Megan Rootes (the deceased's younger sister) and Trevor Rootes (the deceased's father) were received in evidence. The statements describe the emotional pain and harrowing effect the incident of 4 March 2006 has had on the families of the deceased and the two victims.

Order

37 Having regard to the uncontradicted expert opinions of Drs Bell and Sullivan and having regard to the fact that the prosecution and the defence agree that the plea should be accepted, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment. Accordingly, I direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded on the charge of murder and the two charges of attempted murder. I will declare pursuant to s 25(a) of the Act that Mr Taleski is liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Act.

[1] [2003] VSC 181.

[2] [2005] VSC 518 at [4]- [12]. See also R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182.

[3] Compare R v Martin [2005] VSC 518 at [13]- [21].