New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v BATEMAN [2000] NSWSC 867 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70010/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 28/08/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 August 2000 PARTIES : REGINA v Leonard Lawrence BATEMAN JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1 COUNSEL : Crown: W Robinson QC Offender: MM Hobart SOLICITORS : Crown: SE O'Connor Offender: Mark Klees & Associates CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - sentencing - manslaughter - substantial impairment by abnormality of mind DECISION : See paragraph 16 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION GRAHAM BARR J Wednesday, 30 August 2000 70010/00 - REGINA v Leonard Lawrence BATEMAN SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Leonard Lawrence Bateman, was charged with the murder on 4 August 1999 of his wife Doreen Louise Bateman. On 28 August 2000, the day fixed for the commencement of his trial, he pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and the Crown accepted the plea in full discharge of the indictment. 2 The offender and the deceased, Doreen Louise Bateman, were married for fifty-one years. By all accounts it was a happy marriage and the offender and the deceased used to do everything together. However, they both experienced illness as they grew older. The deceased was three years older than the offender and in 1998, when she was seventy-six years old, she underwent cardiac surgery. Before and after the surgery she was rendered weak and unable to manage very well. The offender himself was suffering from a number of complaints, including inflammatory bowel disease and was experiencing arthritic joint pain. All the work of the household fell onto him and he began to worry whether he could look after the deceased properly and attend to all his responsibilities. 3 Then, in April 1999, their house was badly damaged in a hailstorm. The roof was wrecked and there was a good deal of water damage. The offender took on the responsibility of engaging a tiler to restore the roof. His symptoms continued and he sought medical help for his abdominal complaint. He lost a lot of weight. In July 1999 a community health worker visited him at home and thought that he was depressed, but he was reluctant to seek treatment. His general practitioner prescribed anti-depressant medicine. 4 The offender's concerns increased and he become convinced, contrary to the fact, that the tradesman who was tiling the roof was not performing his job satisfactorily. The evidence of their son, Wayne Bateman, shows that the offender had become obsessed about the damage to the roof and had convinced himself unreasonably that he himself had ruined the house by choosing an incompetent tiler. Members of the offender's family knew that he was not well but did not realise how very seriously ill he was. 5 On 3 August 1999 the offender and the deceased retired to bed as usual. Early in the hours of the following morning the offender took a hammer and beat the deceased about the head as she slept. He telephoned the police and told them that he thought that he had killed her. He dressed and waited for them to arrive. He told them that he had just snapped and that it had been working up for a while since the storm had taken off the roof. Later on he was formally interviewed and said that his intention was to put the deceased out of her misery. He said that things had become different following the storm and that he had struck the deceased to stop any pain she might be feeling. 6 After his arrest the offender was admitted to D Ward at Long Bay Prison Hospital and on 6 August was seen by the Senior Psychiatric Registrar, Dr Farago. The clinical notes taken at that time describe disturbed sleep, depression, significant weight loss and hallucinations. The diagnosis was psychotic depression. On the following day Dr Mastroianni diagnosed major depression with psychotic features. 7 On 17 August the offender was seen by Dr Olav Nielssen who thought him clearly severely depressed and reached a diagnosis of psychotic depression. 8 The offender continued under the management of the psychiatric staff of the gaol hospital and when bail was granted on 7 September it was conditional upon his entering a hospital for treatment. 9 Unfortunately, his depression did not respond satisfactorily to anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication. He continued to exhibit depressive and psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations of his wife's voice and a belief that insects were attracted to him because his body was giving off the smell of rotting flesh. Accordingly, a course of electro-convulsive therapy was recommended. Since the offender was considered to lack the insight and judgment necessary to decide about that, he was made an involuntary patient under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Some indication of the seriousness of his illness is gained from the fact that it took eighteen treatments, compared to a normal course of six to eight, before a satisfactory result was achieved. After about fifteen treatments improvement was noticed and the offender's mood was much improved. He began enjoying food, his affect became more appropriate, he began to be able to sleep and regained his lost energy. He regained insight and judgment. 10 He is now progressing satisfactorily and feels much more at ease and at peace. He appears to be no longer depressed and is not suicidal. He has taken up again some of the pursuits he enjoyed before these events. He plays tennis and has resumed visiting his children and spending time with them. 11 A number of psychiatrists have given evidence, namely Dr Nielssen, Dr Mastroianni, Dr Shome, the consultant psychogeriatrician at the Sutherland Hospital and Dr Jeremy O'Dea, who has not treated the offender but has provided a report on behalf of the Crown. All seem to agree that the offender's serious depressive episode was precipitated by the problems he encountered after the house was damaged in the hailstorm. The result was that his reasoning, judgment and insight were significantly influenced by his depressed mood. His abnormality of mind substantially impaired his capacity to make a proper judgment and to control himself. 12 At the present time there is in force a treatment plan approved by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under the terms of a Community Treatment Order. Broadly, the plan requires the offender to attend the Sutherland Community Health Centre at regular intervals, to keep in touch with his case manager and, where it is arranged, to see Dr Shome, to take medication prescribed by Dr Shome and to accept other contact with the case manager, including home visits where they are considered necessary. 13 Those who have reported on the offender agree that if he continues to receive this psychiatric oversight and care the risk of his offending again will be negligible. I accept that assessment. 14 The offender has expressed deep remorse for his actions and I accept that he is genuine. He has suffered greatly himself. But for his illness he would not have acted as he did. There is in my opinion no need to pass any sentence which gives any significant weight to deterrence. He himself needs no deterrence, for he will not reoffend. 15 In my opinion the just and proper way to deal with the matter is to make the offender the subject of a bond, a condition of which will ensure that he continues to be seen, assessed and if appropriate treated by those who have the continuing responsibility for his psychiatric care. 16 Leonard Lawrence Bateman, in lieu of imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon you I direct that you enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of five years from today upon the following conditions - 1. That you appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during that term; 2. That you be of good behaviour; 3. That you inform the Registrar of the Supreme Court of any change in your residential address during the term of the bond; and 4. That you continue to abide by the conditions of the treatment plan approved by the Mental Health Review Tribunal or any treatment plan which may be substituted therefor. ********** Last Modified: 09/27/2000 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.