R v Blacka [2000] NSWSC 980

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Blacka [2000] NSWSC 980 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70070/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 20 October 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 October 2000

PARTIES : Regina Glenn James Blacka JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJatCL at 1

LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Ms L. Wells (Crown) Mr T. Golding (Accused) SOLICITORS : CATCHWORDS : M'Naghten Rules LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 s 39 Mental Health Act 1990 DECISION : Accused Not Guilty by reason of mental illness. In acordance with s 39 Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, order that he be detained in a psychiatric hospital gazetted under the Mental Health Act 1990 in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

FRIDAY 20 OCTOBER 2000

70070/99 - REGINA v GLENN JAMES BLACKA

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a very tragic case, involving the death of a young boy aged two years, that occurred on Sunday 6 June 1999, at the home of his mother. It was occasioned by the act of the accused who was a boarder at those premises. Arising out of that act, the accused was charged with murder. 2 Shortly prior to his death, the young boy entered the room of the accused. While there, the accused picked up a ballpein hammer, which he was accustomed to carrying about his person for the purposes of protection. Tragically, he struck that child eight or nine times about the head with that hammer occasioning massive injuries which led to his death. Having carried out this act, the accused placed the hammer upon the lounge room floor and walked out to the front of the house to await police. On the way out he apologised to the mother of the boy stating that he had not meant to do it. 3 Upon arrival of police, he was initially cooperative but when asked to lie upon the ground he began to struggle violently, whereupon they attempted to arrest him. Capsicum spray was used, in an attempt to subdue him, but such was the extent of his disturbance that it appeared to have very little effect. Eventually he was overcome, but not before biting one police officer on the finger and assaulting two other police officers. 4 After being taken to hospital for treatment of the injuries sustained in the course of the arrest, a blood sample was obtained. He was later interviewed. The blood sample did reveal some traces of cannabinoids and also amphetamine, but it appears from the report of Dr Moynham that those substances were not present to any significant extent. In particular, the amphetamine traces were below therapeutic levels. To the significance of those findings I will return. 5 During his interview, the accused provided details concerning the attack which were consistently reproduced in the histories that were taken by the several psychiatrists who subsequently reviewed him. In broad substance, he reported that after the young boy came into his room, he experienced delusions, which were both auditory and visual. He said that the boy's voice changed and that someone began talking through him who he believed to be the Devil. In the course of the succeeding moments, he had a visual hallucination that the boy had grown horns in his head. According to him, his eyes started to flicker around and he felt funny. He asked the child not to do it and to leave him. For a time he had the impression that the child reverted to normal but he then re-emerged in the form of the Devil talking to him. It was as a consequence of those hallucinations and the voices that he heard in his head, that , the attack occurred which brought about the terrible death of the small boy. 6 The history that he gave in the ERISP was uniformly given to and recorded by the several examining psychiatrists. Additionally, it was noted that he had something of a troubled history commencing with a recourse to heavy drinking and cannabis use from a relatively young age. That cannabis use continued until the time of the matters which now bring the accused before the court. Additionally, it appears that from time to time the accused has used heroin and cocaine, as well as Ecstasy, but more significantly he has a long-standing history of significant amphetamine abuse in a binge form. It appears that recourse to that substance followed his treatment for alcoholism, and it was a habit which effectively destroyed his career in the horseracing industry leading him to become a displaced person living rough, but engaged from time to time in casual work within that industry. 7 At a time, which is somewhat inconsistently recorded in the histories but appears to have been during the period 1993 to 1995, he was admitted to Shellharbour Hospital and treated for an acute amphetamine induced psychosis which subsequently resolved. Thereafter, in 1996 during his reception into the prison system for other offences, he was found by a Dr Lewin to be paranoid. Whether or not antipsychotic medication was prescribed within the prison system is not entirely clear, but it does appear that in 1997 Dr Chandra did prescribe such medication for him. The accused continued to take it, at least during the currency of the prescription. 8 Thereafter, the history would suggest that from time to time he did suffer from auditory hallucinations, ideas of reference and paranoid experiences. His mother recalled two such occasions where he had the belief that people were lurking outside his house or otherwise determined to cause him harm. On one such occasion he reportedly jumped off a moving train as he thought that people in the carriages had guns. It was her impression that his mental health had deteriorated since the age of 20 and that such deterioration became significantly more noticeable after he reached the age of 30. 9 The medical evidence is all in one direction, both as to his fitness to plead and as to the presence of mental illness at the time of the killing. Each of Doctors Nielssen, Canaris and Wilcox have expressed the opinion that the accused suffers from chronic schizophrenia. Dr Cullen's diagnosis did not go quite so far. Although it appears that his review was somewhat provisional, he was satisfied that the accused suffered from a "paranoidal psychosis" at the time of the offence. 10 I am satisfied from the unanimous opinions of the reviewing doctors that this was not a case of a temporary drug induced response or of an outburst of anger attributable to difficulties that the accused was suffering in relation to his friendship with a strapper. 11 No doubt there was a complicating factor in the history of drug abuse, particularly in the use of drugs over the days preceding the offence. However, the blood sample would not suggest that he was subject to their direct influence at the critical time. I am satisfied that the accused's obsessive and jealous possessiveness concerning his friendship did help to cause him to be somewhat disturbed over the week or so leading up to the offence. It is clear that he had a long-standing infatuation with that man which was not necessarily returned, and that he was exceedingly jealous or troubled by that friendship which appeared to be having its problems. However, there is nothing to suggest that he was exhibiting obvious signs of anger when he returned home, let alone that he had any reason to take out that anger on the child, whom it would appear, he liked. 12 The matter of significance that establishes that this was not a transient, or a purely drug induced reaction, or outburst of anger, emerges from the opinion of Dr Nielssen where he notes that: "The persistence of symptoms of mental illness nine months after ceasing amphetamines, despite treatment with moderate doses of antipsychotic medication, indicates that the correct diagnosis is schizophrenia." 13 The reference, in that regard, is to the history of the accused while in custody, after the offence, it being the fact that although free of prohibited drugs he suffered a continuation of symptoms of hallucination, paranoia, ideas of reference and the like that characterises the illness diagnosed. It was not until there was a change of antipsychotic medication that any improvement in his condition emerged. Even now his condition has not fully resolved since he remains suspicious, fearful and prone to auditory hallucinations and fluctuating delusions. 14 In Dr Nielssen's opinion, the accused was: "acutely psychotic at the time of the offence. It is likely that the acute symptoms of mental illness were triggered by the drugs he took on the day of the offence. There was a history longstanding of amphetamine abuse, which is known to induce psychotic illness in susceptible individuals, and at least one previous acute psychotic episode for which Mr Blacka required treatment in hospital." Dr Nielssen continued,