New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Principal Registrar, Supreme Court of New South Wales v Katelaris [2001] NSWSC 506 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12723/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 29 - 30 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 June 2001 PARTIES : Principal Registrar, Supreme Court of NSW (Plt) Andrew John Katelaris (Def) JUDGMENT OF : McClellan J COUNSEL : P Lakatos/Adams (Plt) Dr Katelaris (Def in person) SOLICITORS : I V Knight (Plt) Dr Katelaris (Def in person) CATCHWORDS : CONTEMPT OF COURT - declaration that defendant is guilty of contempt of court sought - order sought that defendant be punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court - abuse and threats to legal adviser may constitute a contempt - whether acts done or words spoken can be considered an interference with the course of justice - Pt 55 r 11 SCR - standard of beyond reasonable doubt Wang v Central Sydney Area Health Service & 2 Ors (2000) Aust Torts R 81-574 Wilson v Prothonatory [2000] NSWCA 23 In the Matter of Samuel Goldman [1968] NSWR 325 CASES CITED : Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King Emperor [1945] AC 264 In re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68 Consolidated Press v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 325 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15 DECISION : See para 63 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION McCLELLAN J FRIDAY, 1 JUNE 2001 12723/00 - PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v KATELARIS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The Principal Registrar seeks an order that the defendant, Dr Katelaris be punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt. The events which gave rise to the alleged contempt took place in courtroom llC of the Supreme Court building, following delivery of judgment in a matter in which Dr Katelaris was a party. Dr Katelaris appeared for himself in those proceedings and he appears for himself before me. 2 Sha Cheng Wang was seriously assaulted one evening on his way home and required medical attention. The assailant was never found. However, Mr Wang, by his tutor, sued both Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Dr Katelaris, claiming damages because of their alleged negligence when he consulted them on the evening of the assault. 3 Mr Horler QC appeared for Mr Wang. Dr Katelaris, as I have indicated, appeared for himself throughout the proceedings. 4 The trial commenced before Hidden J with a jury. It was originally estimated to run for two weeks. It became obvious that the matter would not conclude in that time, and his Honour made an order dispensing with the jury. 5 The trial concluded on 9 December 1999, and his Honour handed down judgment on 9 June 2000: Wang v Central Sydney Area Health Service & 2 Ors (2000) Aust Torts R 81-574. 6 The short facts proved at the trial were that Mr Wang had been assaulted, but managed to return home. Although he initially appeared to have suffered no permanent injury, his condition deteriorated and he was taken by friends to Royal Prince Alfred hospital. 7 There was a delay in the plaintiff being examined by the hospital doctors whereupon his friends, who had become increasingly concerned, took him from the hospital to a private clinic known as Superclinics, where he was seen by Dr Katelaris. 8 Dr Katelaris examined Mr Wang and allowed him to return home, where his condition later markedly deteriorated. Tragically, he suffered very significant brain damage and is now seriously and permanently disabled. 9 Mr Wang obtained judgment against the Central Sydney Area Health Service, but failed against both Dr Katelaris and Superclinics. 10 The trial was not without incident and his Honour observed of the defendant: "There is no doubt that Dr Katelaris was a robust advocate in his own cause and there were some episodes of irascible or confrontational behaviour on his part, including some memorable exchanges with senior counsel for the plaintiff. However, on any view of the case, he was in a most stressful situation. As counsel for Superclinics pointed out in final submissions, allowance must be made for the fact that he was involved, without the benefit of legal representation, in lengthy and complex litigation which could have dire consequences for him, both personally and professionally. His evidence was forthright and he did not impress me unfavourably as a witness. (para 84) 11 Judgment was delivered on 9 June 2000 when his Honour announced his verdict and published his reasons. There was then a discussion about the future conduct of the matter, which was stood over for determination of issues of costs. His Honour then adjourned. 12 The events which followed give rise to the present charge. In these proceedings, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, following a direction from the Chief Judge in Common Law, claims a declaration in the following terms: "A declaration that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court in that on 9 June 2000 after judgment was delivered by the Honourable Justice Hidden in the matter of Wang v Central Area Health Service and two others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the defendant did assault Kenneth Horler QC, Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, by striking him and did thereby conduct himself in a manner which, as a matter of practical reality, tended to interfere with the administration of justice." 13 An order is also sought that the defendant be punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court. 14 If our system of justice is to operate effectively, it is essential that courts ensure that their processes are not compromised by the actions of parties to litigation or otherwise. For that reason, the courts have always intervened and, where necessary, punished offenders for contempt. 15 Contempt may take various forms. It may comprise words or actions used in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings: Wilson v Prothonatory [2000] NSWCA 23. It may also consist of words spoken or acts committed away from the courtroom: In the Matter of Samuel Goldman [1968] NSWR 325. 16 To constitute a contempt, the relevant action, including spoken words, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice": Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King Emperor [1945] AC 264 at 266. It may be committed by intimidatory, or punitive conduct, directed against parties to litigation, counsel, solicitors or witnesses: Goldman at 327. 17 As was pointed out in Goldman, (at 328), it has long been held that abuse and threats to a party's legal adviser may constitute a contempt. 18 Bowen LJ said In re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68 at 74: "The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law, and shielded on their way to the discharge of such duties, while discharging them, and on their return thereform, in order that such persons may safely have resort to courts of justice. 19 If the acts done or words used could be considered an interference with the course of justice, they will constitute a contempt: Lord Esher MR in Johnson at 73. 20 It is obvious that conduct by way of an assault upon a legal adviser by a party to the litigation has a tendency to interfere with the course of justice. So also may abuse and threats directed to the adviser. Although it may be that counsel of ordinary firmness will not be deterred in future cases from the performance of their duties, all that is necessary to constitute a contempt is that the relevant tendency is present: Goldman. at 328. It does not matter that the formal proceedings may have been concluded. 21 Provision is now made in Pt 55 of the Supreme Court Rules for the prosecution of contempt. The present proceedings are brought pursuant to Pt 55 r 11, the relevant direction having been made by Wood CJ at CL. 22 The proceedings are criminal in nature, the standard of proof being proof beyond reasonable doubt: Consolidated Press v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 325 at 333; Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15 at 50. 23 Contempt does not require proof that the defendant intended to interfere with the administration of justice, although it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to do the relevant act. 24 In the present case, the act which it is said tended to interfere with the administration of justice is alleged to be an assault by the defendant upon Mr Horler QC, senior counsel for Mr Wang in the proceedings. 25 It is charged that the defendant assaulted Mr Horler by striking him as Hidden J was leaving the court, after delivering judgment. It is alleged that the defendant walked towards Mr Horler holding a copy of his Honour's reasons and struck him in the face with it; that Mr Horler then fell, striking his head on the solicitors' table, and that the defendant uttered the words "There you are, Mr Horler". 26 It is further alleged that a short time later Mr Horler, having left the court room, was waiting at the lift area with other lawyers in the case, when the defendant said words, including those to the effect of, "This is just the beginning, my feathered friends, just the beginning, Mr Horler and Mr Garling". The evidence 27 Evidence was given by Mr Horler. In his affidavit he described the process by which his Honour delivered judgment and the matter was adjourned. He then says: "After His Honour left the bench, I remained standing. Dr Katelaris moved towards me. Dr Katelaris then hit me in the face striking the bridge of my nose with the hand in which was his copy of the judgement. The blow caused me to stagger and I fell backwards striking the back of my head on the edge of the wooden solicitor's table behind me. I fell to the floor, losing my wig and glasses in the process. I was helped to my feet by Mr Ingram and Ms Sarah Henry. During all this Dr Katelaris abused me in a loud and angry voice. I do not remember the precise words he used." 28 He also recalls: "A short time later I walked out towards the lift and on the eleventh floor with Mr Ingram, Dr Katelaris came over towards the lift and shouted at me in any angry voice. He also abused Mr Peter Garling SC in the foyer of the Court. Mr Garling was counsel for the hospital but not present in Court when judgment was given." 29 In oral evidence he stated, in answer to a question: "The judge was on the bench for probably not more than about 10 minutes. We were all there, yourself included, provided with a copy of his judgment. The judge adjourned and, as is the practice, those in the court stood and I remained standing. A short time after the judge and his associate and staff left the bench, a short time later you moved towards me and with the hand that was holding the judgment – (t 35) 30 The defendant, Dr Katelaris, then asked: Q. Which hand was that? A. I am not sure - struck me on the bridge of my nose. Q. Did the alleged assault take place in that space here? (indicated) A. Pardon. Q. Did the alleged assault take place in this space or that space? (indicated) A. No, in the space between the back or rear of the barristers' table and the front edge of the solicitors' table. Q. There? (indicated) A. Yes Q. You are not sure what hand? You said the bridge of your nose; could you indicate which part is the bridge of your nose? A. In my lay language that bony part not the septum. Q. The bridge of the nose where the glasses sit, that is much higher between the eyes? A. I am not accurate in medical terminology. About where I am pointing to on my nose. (indicated) Q. A little below the bridge of your nose? A. Yes Q. In your recollection what was the nature of the blow? I can give you some examples that I can demonstrate: A stiff blow, was it a push, slap, this, that, upper cut; there is a range of blows? A. I can't answer that. It might have been a back hander but that is a speculation. I have no doubt that it was the hand in which you held the recently published 32 page judgment: Some bony part, whether it be that section of your hand or the wrist or the forearm or the elbow, I can't be sure. Some hard or bony part of your lower arm came in contact with my nose." 31 Mr Michael Windsor, the barrister who appeared for the Central Area Health Service, also gave evidence. In his affidavit he said: "After his Honour left the bench, Mr Horler walked towards me behind the bar table. As he did this, Dr Katelaris turned from the bar table so that he was then facing the back of the Court. He was holding a copy of the decision that had been provided to him by his Honour's tipstaff. The decision was set out on thirty two A4 sized sheets of paper that had been stapled together. The judgment was bent in half lengthways, and Dr Katelaris was holding it at one end, in his right hand. As Mr Horler walked past Dr Katelaris, the doctor struck Mr Horler in the face with a copy of the decision, which he held in his right hand. I am not sure whether any part of Dr Katelaris' right hand hit Mr Horler. The movement by Dr Katelaris was not a 'flick' in Mr Horler's face. I would describe it as a sharp slap or whack. As Dr Katelaris hit Mr Horler in the face, he said words to the effect of: 'There you are, Mr Horler.' The moment he was hit, Mr Horler's wig fell to the floor. He slumped to his knees. He did not fall flat on the floor. At that time he was very close to the solicitor's table which was situated behind the bar table. I did not see whether Mr Horler hit his head as he went down. I grabbed at Mr Horler's left arm and shoulder as he went down. He stayed down for approximately 15-20 seconds. Whilst he was on the floor, he said to me: 'I hit my head on the table.' Mr Horler got up with my assistance. I picked up his wig for him. He then took a seat at the bar table. I noticed that Mr Horler was looking pale. By this stage, Dr Katelaris had already left the Court. His Honour's Associate called out after him in a loud voice. Justice Hidden returned into the Court and came down to offer support to Mr Horler. A short time later I walked out towards the lift. Both Mr Horler and Mr Ingram were by my side. There were many people milling around the lift area. There were also many people waiting outside Court 11A in which Justice Hunter was presiding. Dr Katelaris came over towards the lift. He spoke loudly and clearly, but did not appear to be addressing anyone in particular. Dr Katelaris said words to the effect of: 'This is just the beginning my feathered friends. Just the beginning, Mr Horler and Mr Garling. You drunken has-been. You drunk. Mr Horler you drunken has been.' 32 Mr Windsor was cross-examined by the defendant, and particularly, questioned about the words the defendant used in the courtroom. The defendant maintained that before Mr Horler fell, the defendant had said "There you are Mr Horler, the judgment." He asked Mr Windsor: "Q. You say as Dr Katelaris hit Mr Horler in the face he said words to this effect, 'there you are, Mr Horler'. If I put it to you that Dr Katelaris actually said, 'there you are Mr Horler, the judgment' before any contact with Mr Horler took place, would you concede that is a possibility? A. I would concede it's a possibility. It's most unlikely; as I heard it and saw it the strike occurred before the words were spoken. Q. Would you concede you may be in error in that instance? A. I think it unlikely." (t 47) 33 Later he was asked: "Q. If I put it to you I said, 'there you are Mr Horler, the judgment, you drunken has been. You couldn't beat an amateur like me with all your dirty tricks', do you think it's possible you could have mistaken some of those words after all my back was to you? A. It's possible. I certainly recall those words I have recorded and nothing more." (t 48) 34 The defendant also mentioned that, if Mr Horler was hit, it was an accident, which occurred when he was berating Mr Horler and wagging a copy of his Honour's decision toward him. 35 Mr Windsor rejected this assertion. He said: A. The judgment was in your right hand, it was held in the fashion you are holding the judgment right now. The judgment was directed to Mr Horler, not in a fashion of an up down motion with your right arm but your right arm moved across your body from left to right and in the movement from left to right Mr Horler's face was struck and you were holding the judgment at one end. 36 Ms Fiona Halloran, an ABC radio journalist, who was present in court, also gave evidence. She said in her affidavit: "After the judge left the courtroom, Lance Northey and I moved forward towards the Judge's Associate to collect a copy of the judgment. To my left as I was facing the bench I saw Mr Horler, who I knew to be one of the barristers in the matter, attempting to pass by Dr Katelaris going towards the right of the courtroom as you look towards the bench. When Mr Horler was behind Dr Katelaris in the restricted space between the bar table and the solicitors' table Dr Katelaris hit him in the face with a rolled up copy of the judgment. The judgment was folded longways. Mr Horler immediately slumped forward. I heard an impact noise and saw that Mr Horler had lost his glasses and wig and was holding his face in his hands. Another barrister came to his assistance. Mr Horler then sat in a chair as the other lawyers crowded around him. At this point, Dr Katelaris left the room. I heard the Judge's Associate call out to him. She said words to the effect of: 'Doctor, Doctor, come back' Later, outside the Court, I was in the lift area where there was a large number of people milling around. I heard Dr Katelaris making derogatory remarks to Mr Horler in a loud voice. I do not recall exactly what he said but I remember he used the words 'has-been' and 'drunk'. He looked angry and upset and shouted at Mr Horler for about a minute. There was a woman with him who appeared to be trying to calm him down." 37 Ms Halloran said in her oral evidence: "Q. Could you describe what you saw to the best of your recollection? A. I saw Mr Horler trying to pass behind you and then I saw him being hit in the face with a rolled up copy of the judgment. Q. Could you tell us what hand the rolled up copy of the judgment was in? A. I can't remember which hand the judgment was in. Q. Can you remember what the nature of the blow was? A. It was a blow to the middle of the face, middle region. (t 57) 38 Later, she was asked: "Q. If I put it to you that Dr Katelaris was more or less here and turned to face Mr Horler about berating him for his conduct at the trial and waving the judgment in towards Mr Horler whilst he was attempting to pass me, would that lead to a consistent blow on the bridge of the nose which is where Mr Horler - who really is the person who should know - was struck. 'You're a drunken has-been Mr Horler. You couldn't beat an amateur like me with all your dirty tricks' and down. Do you think that's a credible explanation of how the events took place? A. I didn't see it like that. Q. Tell me how you saw it? I recall Mr Horler trying to pass you from behind and then I recall Mr Horler being hit in the face with a rolled up copy of the judgment." Q. 'Angry and upset'. I don't want to put words in your mouth but would we agree that the point of contact with Mr Horler's nose was the document rather than elbow, wrist, fist or any other part of the physical anatomy of Dr Katelaris? A. I recall the rolled up copy of the judgment hitting the middle part of his face. I don't recall him being hit by anything else." (t 59) 39 Mr Lance Northey, a journalist with Radio 2UE, also gave evidence. He said in his affidavit: "As Justice Hidden was leaving the courtroom his Associate, who I know to be Denise Hare, began to hand out copies of the judgment to the parties involved. I stood up and began walking towards the Associate to get a copy of the judgment. At this time I saw Dr Katelaris standing near Mr Horler QC. Mr Horler was the barrister for the plaintiff in those proceedings. I could see that Dr Katelaris was saying something to Mr Horler but I could not hear what this was from where I was standing. I was standing at the right hand corner of the Associate's bench as you look towards the bench from the back of the court. Mr Horler and Dr Katelaris were standing on the left hand side of the Associate's bench. Dr Katelaris took his copy of the 32 page judgment, which had been folded over lengthways, in his right hand. He drew his right hand back across his body just above his left shoulder and in one swift motion swung it across towards Mr Horler hitting him on the left side of his face, above the left eye. Mr Horler fell to the floor. He hit his head on the bar table and lost his wig and glasses as he fell down. A barrister went to his aid as did Denise Hare. Dr Katelaris then left the courtroom." 40 When cross examined, Mr Northey stated that it was his recollection that the defendant and Mr Horler were standing between the bar table and the witness box when Mr Horler was struck. Others, of course, recall that the events occurred when they were standing between the bar table and the solicitors' table. In this respect I am satisfied that Mr Northey's recollection is faulty. However, I am otherwise satisfied that his recollection is accurate, in particular, his description of the manner in which the defendant struck Mr Horler. 41 Ms Sarah Henry, the solicitor for the first defendant, also gave evidence. She did not see Mr Horler struck, although she confirms that he fell to the floor in front of her and between the bar table and the solicitors' table. She recalls the defendant speaking near the lift well, where he said words to the effect "This is only the beginning, Mr Garling and Mr Horler, you drunken has-beens." 42 The defendant gave evidence. He stated: "Mr Horler attempted to walk past me and I must admit I am not absolutely certain what happened after that, but my best reconstruction - it is a reconstruction rather than an absolute recollection, if you know what I mean. I can remember up to here and I can remember after that. So I have to say it is a reconstruction rather than an actual recollection, right. I have two clear recollections. Standing up and berating him, saying, 'you drunken has been. You couldn't defeat an amateur like me with all your dirty tricks' and the next moment he was on the floor and I looked down at him. I said something really sarcastic: 'oh you actor, get up' or something like that and looked down at him and then I left the court. 43 He was cross examined: Q. Did you say to him, 'There you are Mr Horler'? A. I said something to the effect, 'Here you are' or 'There you are, Mr Horler the judgment'. I held the judgment aloft. What I was demonstrating was, because I had made many approaches to Mr Horler saying: there's no case against me, for God's sake let me out of this nightmare, there you are or here you are - I can't be certain - Mr Horler, the judgment, and I showed him the judgment and my hand was shaking in rage, yes, and I would like to think with righteous indignation, this was shaking, and that's what happened. Whether it was a hard blow or not, I can't really say. My impression at that time was he was, he had done a theatrical leap, but on recollection it is hardly likely. It is more likely the shock of having an angry person waving documents in the case, which probably did contact with the bridge of his nose, because I was shaking like this, and caused him to lose his equilibrium. Q. There's no doubt that that judgment, in your mind, that that judgment came into contact with Mr Horler's face. Is there? A. Nose. There's a small amount of doubt I must say. You can cause a person to lose their equilibrium by waving something in their face. I am not absolutely certain whether there was a contact. If Mr Horler states there was a contact, he is the one that would know. I would accept there was. I am not, as an independent recollection, no. I can remember waving it in his face and as he came past me whatever occurred, occurred, but no, I can't absolutely agree with what you are saying. Mr Horler moved towards me while I was berating him. His presumed intention was to get around behind me. He could have taken another way and none of this would have happened." 44 The events of concern to the court occurred on 9 June 2000. On 16 June 2000 the defendant wrote to Hidden J. That letter was in evidence before me. In the letter the defendant described the events which occurred in the courtroom as a "fracas" and sought to give an explanation for his behaviour during the proceedings. He catalogued a variety of complaints particularly directed at Mr Horler. He complained of the fact that Mr Wang was brought to the court to give evidence and said that, "This forago left an enduring legacy of dislike for Mr Horler." 45 In the letter the defendant stated his version of the events of 9 June 2000. He said: "I will now present my perceptions of the events immediately following the judgment. After receiving a copy of the judgment I raised with you my concerns over matters relating to the determination of my costs. You mumbled something and left the bench without fixing a date for finalisation. Having had to wait an agonising seven months for you to finally provide a judgment, the prospect of the matter dragging on was quite upsetting. I turned to Mr Horler holding a copy of the judgment folded once along its length and began to berate him about his conduct of the case. I do believe the document may have connected with the tip of his nose but the amount of force involved could not have been sufficient to knock any normal person off their feet. You refer in your judgment to irascible behaviour on my part, specifically in relation to Mr Horler. If you properly consider all of the above facts my behaviour may appear to be much more understandable." 46 It is obvious that there is a conflict between the evidence of Messrs Horler, Windsor, and Northey and that of the defendant, as to the nature of any blow to Mr Horler. 47 Mr Horler says the defendant moved towards him and hit him in the face. Mr Windsor says that, as Mr Horler walked past the defendant, the latter struck Mr Horler in the face with a copy of the decision. He says that the movement by Dr Katelaris was not a flick but a sharp slap or whack, accompanied by the words, "There you are, Mr Horler". His account is entirely consistent with that of Mr Northey, who says the defendant drew his right hand back across his body, just above his left shoulder, and in one swift motion, swung it across towards Mr Horler, hitting him on the left side of his face, above the left eye. 48 The defendant says that the event was an accident. He says that he did not intend to hit Mr Horler. He claims that he was merely waving a copy of the decision in a manner intended to emphasise the strength of his displeasure, without intending to strike a blow. 49 I have no doubt that the evidence given by Messrs Horler, Windsor and Northey is the correct account of the event. I am satisfied beyond any doubt that the defendant was very angry and determined to express that anger by both verbally abusing Mr Horler and striking a blow on him with the copy of the decision. I do not accept the defendant's evidence that the blow was an accident. Although it may not have been premeditated, I am satisfied that the defendant, overcome by anger, which had been building for many months, intentionally hit Mr Horler, causing him to fall. 50 The defendant gave evidence of a debilitating medical condition and of the medication he had taken on the night of 8 June 2000. He said that he was taking Dexamethosone, Oxycodone and Codeine in various combinations for a few days before 9 June. He said the main drug was Dexamethosone and although taking a variable dose, on or around 9 June he was taking a dose of 24 milligrams, which I understand is a high dose. 51 The defendant called to give evidence Dr Champion, a consultant physician in rheumatology, musculoskeletal medical research and pain medicine. The defendant has consulted with him at regular intervals and has been treated by him with occasional hospitalisation. 52 He gave a history of a confirmed episode of gout in 1989, with other later possible but unconfirmed episodes. From an early stage the defendant showed signs of bursitis in his right elbow, which appears to have been severe on some occasions. 53 Evidence was given that, although Dr Champion may have prescribed drugs for the defendant, this was more usually done by a general practitioner or by self prescription. 54 Dr Champion indicated that a person who received a large dose of corticosteroids and who was biologically susceptible, may suffer mood and cognitive effects. Commonly there may be an exaggeration of the prevailing mood, with cognitive impairment, including lack of balance, lack of judgment, perhaps confusional state. 55 He indicated that 24 milligrams of Decadron given daily, which I infer the defendant took, is a very high corticosteroid dose for somebody who may be corticosteroid naïve, or who has not had the drug for an extended time, and could lead to mood and cognitive aberrations. 56 The doctor was asked by the defendant: "Q. I have been accused in this court of holding up a favourable judgment and yelling angrily at a legal practitioner. In your mind, would that - and having received four days of Dexamethasone, a does of 24 milligrams, as well as some Oxycodone and some other medications as well, do you think there may have been some change in mood perception cognitive ability and judgment by the combination of those circumstances? A. There may have been. It would be no surprise. The risk of impaired judgment would have been substantially increased by that combination of medications and the context that you mentioned." 57 He was also asked: "Q. I'm sorry. Is it your evidence that the use of steroids of that dosage deprives a person of the ability to control an action, in other words, to make a person act involuntarily? A. It depends very much on the context. If that person is in a context where normally some reasonable controls would ensure that reactions of anger, frustration or the like are kept within appropriate bounds, if there is normally, or in that context something of a struggle to behave appropriately, it is not surprising at all that a high dose of corticosteroid such as 24 milligrams of Dexamethasone may be sufficient to reduce that cognitive controlling balance. Q. Is there a distinction between, as it were, lessening the controls on yourself and not, as for example to take a more common case, excessive alcohol and a person acting entirely against any will that they have, in other words, involuntarily, is there a distinction of that kind in what you've answered? A. Well, psychosis, as is well established with corticosteroid, does indicate loss of, or partial loss of the normal controlling influences of our mind on appropriate behaviour. So as alcohol does, so it's not particularly - both acute alcohol intoxication and acute corticosteroid psychosis are organic brain syndromes with loss of these normal controls over behaviour." 58 This exchange also occurred in cross-examination of Dr Champion by Mr Lakatos: "Q. One last matter. Accepting the parameters that we are speaking about, four days of higher dosage corticosteroids, is it possible that a person of Dr Katelaris's age and sex, relevant objective factors, could do something in a courtroom in the nature of hitting somebody? 59 There was an objection and the question was allowed: "Q. Without knowing that he was doing so? Do you want me to repeat the question? A. Without knowing what? Q. That he was hitting the person? A. He would know that he was hitting a person, I expect." 60 He was also asked: "HIS HONOUR: Q. Doctor, can you help me, if this psychosis was induced by the large dose of the steroid, would that have the effect of someone may not know what they are doing? A. In the extreme, in well established, well, the extreme end of psychosis, that could be the case. It is more likely, though, that there would be lack of control and lack of judgment. HIS HONOUR: Q. Nevertheless they would know what they were doing? A. I would have thought so, but not necessarily being able to control that reaction." 61 I am satisfied that the defendant had been taking large doses of corticosteroids and other drugs in the days immediately preceding 9 June 2000. However, I infer that this was not the first occasion on which the drugs had been taken and he was probably not corticosteroid naïve, and certainly had been taking the drugs for a number of days. 62 I accept that the taking of the drugs may have affected his mood and may also have elevated his level of anger and frustration. However, I have no doubt he knew what he was doing on the morning of 9 June, and, notwithstanding any effect from the drugs, he intended to hit Mr Horler. I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant intentionally hit Mr Horler with a folded copy of the judgment. 63 The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to the declaration sought in the summons. ******** Last Modified: 06/26/2001 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.