R v Line

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: On 14 May 2004 Deborah Gay Line stood trial by judge alone on a charge that on 7 October 2003 she murdered Jasmine Line, her eleven year old daughter. She pleaded that she was not guilty on the ground of mental illness. 2 After hearing evidence, I have found pursuant to section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 a special verdict, that is that Ms Line was not guilty by reason of mental illness (R v Line [2004] NSWSC 414, unreported, 14 May 2004). 3 The facts of the events giving rise to the charge can be found briefly stated in my judgment of 14 May. The death of Jasmine Line occurred on 7 October 2003. There is further reference to the facts stated in a medical report of Dr D Greenberg of 23 January 2004 prepared for the purposes of the trial and there tendered. The information for that outline of facts I understand was provided to Dr Greenberg by Ms Line herself. 4 Ms Line had suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for a decade or more. It seems that in the weeks or months prior to October 2003 her symptoms had exacerbated. She had had auditory hallucinations in the form of voices. Inter alia, the voices told her to kill Jasmine. She discontinued her psychiatric medication in about July 2003. She sought help without success. She came to believe that Jasmine embodied Satan. 5 In the afternoon of 7 October Ms Line told Jasmine that she was going to kill her. She gave Jasmine Valium in a glass of milo. The Valium did not induce sleep in Jasmine. Ms Line told Jasmine to lie down, pinched her nose, covered her mouth with her own hand and pushed on her windpipe. The child struggled but did not scream. 6 Immediately after Jasmine's death Ms Line attended the local police station to inform police of what she had done and to seek their assistance. At that time she did not believe that she had done anything wrong. 7 On 14 May I ordered that until further order, Ms Line be detained in the Bunya Unit at the Cumberland Hospital in Parramatta and stood the proceedings over for final disposition after medical assessment of Ms Line. 8 The matter was re-listed for further hearing on 12 November 2004. On that date I was provided with two psychiatric reports, the first that of Dr Michael Giuffrida who was and is Ms Line's treating psychiatrist and the second that of Dr Olav Nielssen who, at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, commented on Dr Giuffrida's report. There is little, if any, area of contention between the two practitioners. To the extent that there is any, I accept, as Dr Nielssen himself suggested was appropriate, the views of Dr Giuffrida as Ms Line's treating psychiatrist. 9 Dr Giuffrida traced the history of Ms Line's mental illness. He recounted a ten-year history of relapsing psychotic illness labelled schizo-affective disorder, a form of schizophrenia. Ms Line has in the past been admitted to various psychiatric institutions. She developed paranoid psychotic illness and responded well to treatment, generally complying with the recommended treatment. 10 In his report Dr Giuffrida outlined some disturbing elements concerning Ms Line's asserted attempts to obtain treatment, especially during a particularly florid episode of her illness, with no success, the tragic outcome being the death of her daughter. It would not be right or fair to make findings of fact based upon the second-hand assertions contained in the report. (By saying that I mean no reflection on Dr Giuffrida who has accepted what has been told to him.) I bear in mind that no response has been called for on the part of the various institutions or individuals concerned and none has been made. Nevertheless, the assertions contained in the report are of sufficient concern to warrant further investigation. 11 Ms Line has been under the psychiatric care of Dr Giuffrida since she was taken into custody on 3 October 2003. He reported on initially slow but ultimately complete recovery from the psychotic symptoms and the acquisition of insight into the delusional nature of the beliefs that led her to kill her daughter. Ms Line understands the need to comply with her treatment requirements. Her recovery has awakened her to the gravity of her conduct with consequent feelings of grief and remorse. She gives no cause for concern about her conduct, although she is anxious, at times tearful and somewhat fragile. She is able to maintain regular contact and an affectionate relationship with her mother who is very supportive and her younger, surviving, daughter, who is in the care of Ms Line senior. 12 Dr Giuffrida recommended that the court exercise its powers under s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. That section, quite recently amended, now gives the court wide powers to release a person found not guilty on the ground of mental illness and empowers the court to impose conditions on that release. A consequential amendment to the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 includes in the definition of forensic patient a person released under s39. This means that such a person is subject to the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. 13 Although Dr Giuffrida recommended that any such release order be subject to conditions, he did not then specify the conditions he considered appropriate. Dr Nielssen agreed with the recommendation that Ms Line be released pursuant to s39, but added a recommendation that certain specified conditions be imposed. These were: "1 That treatment be given in the form of injections of long acting anti-psychotic medication, initially at doses equivalent to Ms Line's current treatment. 2 Transfer from the Bunya Unit to a lower security setting does not take place until the new medication regime has been established. 3 That Ms Line's accommodation and leave conditions be determined by her treating specialist with the consent of the Mental Health Review Tribunal."

14 On the limited material before me I was not satisfied that Ms Line's medication regime should be determined by the court. That is in my view appropriately left in the province of the medical profession. Ultimately the Crown did not press for any such condition. 15 Oral evidence was given on 12 November 2004 by Dr Giuffrida and by Ms Yvonne Line, Ms Line's mother, and by Ms E Milson, a registered nurse described as Ms Line's "key worker". Although Dr Giuffrida was extensively cross-examined, it was not suggested that his proposal for Ms Line's future care and supervision was other than appropriate. Ultimately, no submission to the contrary of what was proposed has been put to this court. 16 On all the evidence, I am satisfied that the course proposed is the appropriate one to take in this case. I have been provided with a document setting out the conditions which it is recommended be imposed. Again, these have met no opposition from the Crown. 17 It is to be borne in mind that the purpose of the imposition of conditions in a case such as this contains no element of punishment. The aim of the exercise is fundamentally the protection of others, in this case most notably Ms Line's surviving daughter, and the community generally together with the welfare of the person concerned. I am satisfied that the conditions suggested are designed to achieve those purposes and are likely to do so. I am satisfied that Ms Line is compliant with her medical treatment and is conscious of the need to adhere to her medication regime. 18 Of course, the nature of her condition is such that the insight she has at present may, temporarily or otherwise, be lost. It is for that reason that the legislature has provided that persons in her position are subject to the overriding supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. I understand that the conditions proposed are essentially drawn from those commonly used by that Tribunal. They are comprehensive and detailed and, I am satisfied, adequate for their purpose. 19 The order I make is that pursuant to s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, Ms Line be released from custody subject to the following conditions:

(i) She accepts as her treating psychiatrist, Dr M Giuffrida, Director of the Bunya Unit at Cumberland Hospital, or his delegate, or Dr Giuffrida's successor in that position;

(ii) she accepts as her case manager Ms Mary Morrow, Clinical Psychologist of the Bunya Unit at Cumberland Hospital, or such other case manager as may be determined by the Director of the Bunya Unit;

(iii) she lives in such accommodation as shall be approved from time to time, in consultation with Ms Line by her case manager, but initially in the Bunya Unit at Cumberland Hospital; (iv) whilst residing in accommodation within Cumberland Hospital, or the Community Housing Initiative Programme ("CHIP") cottages, she accept and carry out any reasonable directions given by her case manager pertaining to leave of absence from that accommodation;

(v) she attends upon, or accept home visits from her case manager, with such regularity as shall be determined from time to time by her case manager, and according to such arrangements as shall be determined by her case manager as to time and place of such attendance or visits;

(vi) she attends upon her treating psychiatrist with such regularity as shall be determined from time to time by her treating psychiatrist, and according to such arrangements as shall be determined by her treating psychiatrist, as to time and place of such attendance;

(vii) she accept such medication as shall be prescribed from time to time by her treating psychiatrist, and shall follow the directions of her treating psychiatrist as to the identity of the person to administer the medication, and the place, mode and regularity of the administration of such medication;

(viii) if for any reason, either her case manager or her treating psychiatrist shall determine that it would be in Ms Line's best interests to reside for a period in a psychiatric hospital or other institution, and shall give her direction to this effect, then Ms Line shall immediately comply with any such direction;

(ix) she engage in such education, training, rehabilitation, recreational, therapeutic or other programmes as shall be directed from time to time, in consultation with Ms Line by her case manager; (x) in relation to use or consumption of illegal drugs and substances, and of mind-affecting and mood-altering drugs and substances, including alcohol, other than such as shall be prescribed for her by a registered medical practitioner, and taken according to the terms of such prescription: (a) she accepts direction and counselling from her case manager as to her consumption of alcohol, including direction to the effect that she should remain completely abstinent from the consumption of alcohol, and (b) in relation to other drugs and substances, she remain completely abstinent, and (c) she submit to such tests for the detection of the use or consumption of drugs and substances including alcohol in contravention of this condition as shall be required from time to time by her case manager, such tests to be administered randomly at the discretion of the case manager, according to such arrangements, as to the nature of the tests to be administered, the place of administration, and the time and frequency of administration of such tests, as shall be determined from time to time by her case manager;

(xii) she attend the Mental Health Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") reviews of her case pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1990 according to arrangements as notified in advance to Ms Line, her case manager, and her solicitor in writing by the Tribunal; and

(xiii) she keep the Registrar of the Tribunal notified in writing of the details of her current residential address and telephone number, and that she notify the Registrar of the Tribunal immediately in writing in the event of any plans to change address, and of any change of address and telephone number.

Last Modified: 12/23/2004 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.