R v O'Grady [2000] NSWSC 1255

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v O'Grady [2000] NSWSC 1255 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70013/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 23/10/00 - 6/12/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 December 2000

PARTIES : Regina Matthew O'Grady JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: Mr M Tedeschi QC SOLICITORS : Crown: SE O'Connor Prisoner: Mr E Conditsis DECISION : See Paragraphs 146-148

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

NO: 70013/00 21 December 2000 HULME J SENTENCE REGINA v Matthew O'GRADY

HIS HONOUR:

1 On Wednesday, 6 December last, after a trial which extended for a period of some six weeks, the prisoner was convicted by a jury of the murder of Christopher Brown. It is now my duty to impose sentence. 2 Before proceeding to the detail, however, there is one thing I want to say: This case has attracted a great deal of media publicity. One can but hope that that publicity is translated, in some way, to all of the children in the State. For, whatever other factors there may have been, it is beyond doubt that the case demonstrates the damage to another two lives - one lost completely; another destined to spend many years in custody - in consequence of the effects of mind-damaging drugs: Marijuana, amphetamines and LSD, or one somewhat similar in effect to it. As a member of the community one cannot but be aware how common is the attitude, particularly among the young, that the use of these drugs is acceptable, smart or fun. As a judge, one cannot but be aware how many lives are badly damaged, if not ruined or destroyed, by them. 3 On 14 May 1999 the prisoner, Matthew O'Grady, and Christopher Brown, the deceased, were at a party. The prisoner was then sixteen years and nine months old, having been born on 6 August 1982. Christopher Brown was fourteen or fifteen. Sometime around 11pm, they and others left, walking in the direction of the Wentworth Falls train station. On the way, Christopher Brown and another boy interrupted their journey to jump on a caravan parked nearby. At that stage, the prisoner developed thoughts of killing Christopher Brown. Although there is some evidence that the prisoner developed these thoughts earlier or later, the preponderance of evidence is that the thoughts developed at the time I have stated, as indeed was submitted on the prisoner's behalf during the trial. 4 The prisoner manufactured and communicated to the deceased a story about going to steal some marijuana plants, and the deceased agreed to accompany him. The deceased invited a girl, who I shall call Miss E, to go with them and the three then turned from the direction they were heading and went into the bushland within the area of Wentworth Falls. They proceeded along a well-known track, known as the Charles Darwin Walk. 5 After a period, the prisoner asked Miss E to wait in the area of a concrete ramp, which appears to have been created by one of the public utilities. There the two boys left her and proceeded to the vicinity of the house where the prisoner and his sister lived with their parents. There, at the suggestion of the prisoner, the deceased waited and the prisoner walked on to his home. There he went inside and obtained keys to the garage or shed, where he knew his father kept rifles. 6 The prisoner obtained one of the rifles and fitted to it a silencer, apparently manufactured to assist in rabbit shooting, which was in an obvious position nearby. He also loaded the magazine of the rifle, placing another few bullets in his pocket. He rejoined the deceased. He gave the deceased some excuse for his possession of the weapon and the two re-entered the bush and walked further down the Charles Darwin Walk. They then turned off the walk and went up a narrow, steep and significantly overgrown track for something of the order of 30 to 50 metres. There each had a cigarette, the deceased seated on a rock and the prisoner holding the rifle at the hip, standing a little lower, about 1.5 metres away. The prisoner then fired, and repeated doing so, something in the order of five times, until the magazine was empty. The rifle had a bolt action and, accordingly, each shot required manipulation of the bolt and trigger. 7 During these actions of the prisoner, the deceased started screaming, and kept doing so. The prisoner then put his hand on the deceased's mouth and throat, as he said in his ERISP, to try and make him be quiet. The prisoner had some success in this regard, but then the deceased started making more noise. The prisoner then reloaded the magazine with bullets from his pocket and shot the deceased a few more times. In all, nine bullets entered the deceased, six into the head, but none penetrating the brain cavity. One of the bullets penetrated the deceased's heart. After discarding a shirt which had blood on it, the prisoner then left the deceased and returned to Miss E, discarding the rifle on the way. 8 On the pretence that the deceased was waiting for them, the prisoner induced Miss E to go with him further into the bush, past the area where the killing had occurred, and into a clearing. There, at the suggestion of Miss E, he called out for the deceased. He also commenced to kiss her and, ultimately, the two had sexual intercourse, although probably not to the extent of ejaculation. 9 There was other evidence by Miss E as to the prisoner's conduct with her but it is not, I think, necessary that I make any further findings as to what occurred between the two of them beyond these. 10 Firstly, while I do not hold against the prisoner anything that occurred between him and Miss E, I am of the view that nothing that did occur operates in his favour. Secondly, in case other Courts should have occasion to consider the matter, I believe Miss E in her evidence that the prisoner, on a number of occasions, went behind her with a shirt he had rolled up into the form of a rope. I should add that that is my summary of her evidence and motions in describing the prisoner's actions. 11 Miss E then expressed a desire to go home. The prisoner led her out of the bush into a section of road with which she was familiar. He then returned to the bush, retrieved the rifle, placed it back in the shed, throwing what was by now an empty cartridge box behind a fridge, and went into the house. There he observed the presence of blood on his shirt and arm, took his clothes off and washed the blood off his arm. He said that at home he realised what he had done, woke his sister, with whom he was close, told her he loved her and spent a deal of the night reflecting. Subject to the issue of the time when the prisoner first realised what he had done, I am disposed to accept this evidence. 12 On the following morning, the prisoner waited until his parents and sister had left, or were otherwise occupied, and then took himself to the Katoomba police station. Arriving at about 11am, he informed the police officer at the desk that he had something to tell him. Taken into an interview room, he then announced that he had killed someone. During the course of the day, he then, willingly, answered questions asked of him, both before and during a lengthy electronically recorded interview. 13 Because of his age, it was necessary that an adult be present during the prisoner's interview. He nominated a Mr Krook, saying that he did not wish to face his family at that time. It is appropriate to record my view that, at the time of the interview, the prisoner was, to a not inconsiderable degree, in shock and in a state of perplexity at what had occurred, and that he answered, at least the vast bulk of the questions asked, frankly. 14 At least some of his actions at home, in attending the police station as he did, and in what he said and did there, provides compelling evidence of both remorse and a sense of responsibility at those times. His desire not to face his family on 15 May also is indicative of a feeling of shame. I accept that this remorse continues and, given his youth and the medical evidence in his favour called at the trial, I do not regard the fact that he defended the charge against him as detracting from it. 15 There were some statements which would seem, having regard to what the prisoner has said since, not to be accurate. They include the explanation given to Sergeant Demmery and answers 64, 366 and 421 to 422 in the prisoner's ERISP, in which the prisoner said, inter alia, that his intention was to scare the deceased. However, given what I regard as an understandable state of perplexity, which the prisoner must have been going through at the time, I do not regard these as denying the conclusions expressed in the immediately preceding paragraph. 16 I have so far recounted what the prisoner did. Justice to the community, including the victim's family, and to the prisoner, and the principles of sentencing, require that I also address the question of why, and that is a far more complicated task. I will commence by referring to what he said to Sergeant Demmery at an early stage at the police station: "I went to a party last night and a few of us left and went down near Charles Darwin Walk. I don't know why but I said to Chris 'Let's go steal a plantation'. There was a girl there and Chris decided to come with me. I don't know why...I was out of my head, like I was watching it, not doing it. I got this gun from my father. I know where he keeps the keys and I think I just wanted to freak him out. Chris said 'What are you doing with that?' and, I don't know, I just shot him." 17 Some of the answers given by the prisoner in his ERISP also do or may bear on the question of how the shooting came about and the prisoner's mental state at the time. They include questions 64 to 66, 72 to 73, 231, 264, 286, 289, 365 to 368, 378 to 380, 407, 415, 421, 422, 426 to 428, 431 to 432, and 453. "Q64 What were your intentions in going to that spot? Why did you go there in the first place? A It's really not clear but I had the intention of scaring him. And just having it, a firearm with me at, and... Q65 OK A it wasn't like something I was clear on at the time, it was, it was I said before, it was like I was watching... Q66 So the spot... A myself. Q72 OK And what happened, did you hear any scream from him or any? A He kept thrashing about and he (sic) kept shooting. And... Q73 I'm sorry. Could I clarify that. You said something then? A I kept shooting. Q231 OK. Did you mean to shoot him? A Yes. Q264 Was it still? A No, I think it was windy but nothing like today. Q286 OK. All right, so what happened after you say that you fired two more shots out of the re-loaded magazine? A Chris was laying there, he was still breathing and I just got out of there. Just put the gun over my shoulder and ran back down the path and back up to where the girl was waiting. Just before I got to her, I threw the gun into the bushes and I got her and I said, quickly we have to go down here and meet Chris. And we went down, further past Chris. I was panicking, I just wanted to hide for a little bit in case someone came and we were about 500m maybe past the metal stairs. And we crossed the creek and we were waiting there. I said, Chris was here and he must have been chased or something like that. That's what I said to her. And we waited or ages and she kept calling out and going. Oh we'd better go, we'd better go. And I'm like, no, we've gotta wait for Chris because I kept hearing people and I thought someone could have heard and come down to the track to see what was happening. And while we were waiting, me and this girl started kissing and we had sex down there. Q289 OK, and what happened then? A And afterwards I said, we've, I said, we still should wait because I could still hear bushes moving and I thought I heard people but don't think it was. She said, I've really got to go and I said OK I'd better take you out. And she said, yeah, can you walk me? And I went sure. And I led her out and walked up the stairs at the end of Park Street and I was telling her where we were so she could get her bearings cause we'd been walking through the bush and she didn't know the area. And then I walked her to the end of Park Street, turned right and walked her to the top of Falls Road and she said, yeah, I'll go from here. And I pointed out where she had to go, she could see the highway clearly and she knew where to go from there. And she knew where she was because she knew where the public school was which was just about 30m down the road and we just said goodbye and I walked back down... Q365 OK So what was the reason for telling this person, Chris that story? ('the story' is that about stealing the marijuana.) A I dunno. I wanted to get him away down. Q366 And why did you want to get him away? A I dunno. Scare them and. Q367 Scare them? Did you want to scare both of them or just Chris? A Mainly just Chris. Q368 And why was that? A I dunno. Q378 Right. OK. All right Matthew. As I've said to you earlier, I've been out to that location that you described to me earlier and I have found the deceased body of a young male. At this stage I am uncertain what his name is but have reasonable cause to believe that it's the same young male that you're telling me that you shot. OK Now can you tell me why you shot him? A I don't know. It was, when I was standing there I just, he didn't like do anything to make me angry. I just, I didn't even say, anything, it just, I just did it. One minute I was just standing there and then the next I'd done it. Q379 Do you recall what you were talking about at the time that you shot him? A No, we were not really talking, we were just sitting there. Q380 When you first pulled the trigger, did you mean to pull the trigger and shoot this person, Chris? A It was really quick, but yeah. But it was pointing at him and I'm not, like if I've got a gun and unfamiliar with it. Q407 And once again, just to clarify you indicated that you then have placed two more bullets into the magazine of the, of the rifle? ('then' is after placing his hands on the deceased's mouth and throat.) A Yes. Q415 Did you know what you were doing was wrong? A Yes. Q421 When did you, when did you decide that you were going to shoot Chris? A When I was standing there having a cigarette with him. I just had it there and while I was getting the gun I was saying to myself like, what, why bother or what, I dunno. Q422 When you were getting the gun, had you thoughts of shooting Chris then? A Yeah, I think so, as well then. But it wasn't like a decision, it was more like thinking about like more if it was accidental or something because I'd bought it out and we were messin around and I was just peakin him out, tryin to freak him out and. Q426 And you put the silencer on the rifle? A I did. Q427 And what was your purpose of putting the silencer on it? A Pardon? Q428 What was the reason for putting the silencer on it? A Because you can't hear it. Q431 Before this incident, where Chris has been shot, have you ever had thoughts of shooting someone? A Yeah. I'm a fairly violent person. Not like right out but I've always had a thing with weapons and I dunno I, hunting and all that. Q432 And what were your thoughts that you've had previously about shooting a person? A Sometimes I just see it, kinda goin through my head, just like scenarios sort of things. I never thought I'd do it. I thought it was always kind of like a weird thing in my head. Q453 All right. Is there anything further you want to say about this? A I'm not clear on why I did it. It's not an excuse or anything like that, I'm just saying that, I can't see why I would of, even thought it's already happened, sort of thing." 18 A number of these answers provide clear evidence that at the time the prisoner was conscious of what he was doing, conscious of its wrongness and ramifications, and able to make rational decisions directed to concealing his offence or involvement. Although I appreciate that it is not part of my function to seek to deduce the reasons for the jury's decision, these answers provide a clear basis for a rejection of opinions of various of the doctors to the effect that the prisoner lacked control or an appreciation of what he was doing or was otherwise acting as an automaton. 19 Reference should be made also to parts of the statement taken from the prisoner by his solicitor on 1 June 1999 at a time when, according to the prisoner, he had never heard of "depersonalisation", "a defence of substantial impairment" or "a defence of involuntariness". The statement records: "It was at this time (i.e. The caravan incident) whilst I was thoughts began to come into my head to shoot Chris. I could see pictures in my head of me shooting him more or less in the way I did shoot shooting myself. These thoughts wouldn't go away. We walked down the track for a fair way and then turned off into the bushland. Chris was sitting on a rock and I was standing about 1.5 metres away from him. In my head I had what I would describe as these incredible thoughts, really loud' kill him, kill him, kill him'. From the time I had left Chris, gone home to get the rifle to this point in time I constantly see the pictures in my head that I had previously mentioned. When I got home I washed myself and put the bloody top I had been wearing beside the bed, I had already returned the rifle to the shed. Whilst I was washing myself I looked into the mirror and then it hit me for the very first time what I had done, that is, that I had just shot Chris. I decided that I would go to the police and confess what I had done. I was going mad because of the realisation of what I had done. From the time when I got the killing thoughts in my head it was as though I was feeling really, really different, really undazed (sic) as if I was watching myself doing everything that I was doing and listening to myself and yet I couldn't stop myself from shooting Chris. I remember telling the police during the interview of me that it was as if I was watching myself." 20 This evidence was admitted in response to a challenge by the Crown to the suggestion previously made by the prisoner to various doctors that he had heard voices saying "Kill him" or "Do it" and could not control himself. There is no mention of these matters in the prisoner's ERISP. 21 Under cross-examination, the prisoner had given evidence to the effect that there was no opportunity or occasion to refer to these matters in the ERISP, but I disagree. Questions or answers 64 to 65, 365, 368, 378 and 453 clearly inspired reference to them, although the significance of the prisoner's failure to mention the voices and lack of control must be assessed in light of all of the factors operating at that time. As I have said, I regard the prisoner as having been in a state of shock and perplexity at the time of his ERISP. 22 I had reservations during the time the prisoner gave evidence as to the truthfulness of all he said. At times I had the impression that he was giving answers which he thought would help his case rather than necessarily true ones. Although to some degree it must be a matter of impression, I am inclined to accept his evidence that on the night of 14 May he did hear voices, but I am not disposed to accept his statement that he had no control. 23 On the night in question the prisoner had attended the party with some of his friends. He had an argument with one of them and that probably left him somewhat angry or upset. The prisoner and the deceased did not know each other previously, but would seem to have had a short exchange at the party. 24 The deceased made, according to what the prisoner has said since, some "smart arse" words, but, as he said in his ERISP, the deceased had not done anything to upset him to any significant extent. That is how I interpret the prisoner's answers to questions 369 and 370: "Q. Did you have any argument with him? A. No. That's what I was tryin' to work out all night. Q. Did he upset new any way? A. No, not really." 25 There was a deal of other evidence as to the prisoner's actions and mood on the night of 14 May. The evidence that despite a lengthy history of drug-taking he had no drugs other than alcohol that night is compelling, and I accept it. There was some disagreement as to the amount of alcohol he consumed, but I am satisfied that it was or was about three full bottles of beer. Although the prisoner referred, in his interview, to consuming two and a half bottles, his then attitude to alcohol makes it unlikely that he did not drink all that he had. Three bottles accorded also with the evidence of Messieurs Slattery and Pilgrim. I am satisfied also that two of these bottles were consumed prior to the prisoner's arrival at the party somewhere about eight or nine o'clock and the third on the way or there. I am satisfied that the prisoner was at least mildly intoxicated during and after the incident involving the caravan. 26 A number of witnesses gave evidence as to the prisoner's conduct both before and at the party. Their evidence was not all consistent. One, a Mr Dale, said that the prisoner was talking about putting people in cages with animals, used the word "carnage" over and over, and was acting "very violent towards some of the people at the party". Having regard to the recency with which some of Mr Dale's evidence occurred to him, I regard him as a most unreliable witness. No other of the witnesses gave evidence of the prisoner talking in this way, and I am not prepared to find that he probably did. Even if there was some mention of these matters to Mr Dale, the absence of similar remarks to others suggests to me that any mention of the matter to Mr Dale was not of significant magnitude or indicative of some state of arousal on the part of the prisoner. 27 Mr Callan Quentenmeyer described the prisoner's conduct as weird. Such specificity as he provided is not a convincing example of such conduct and, in light of the evidence from a number of others to the effect that the prisoner was acting normally, I am not persuaded that his conduct did answer this description. 28 Although I accept that the prisoner was probably somewhat angry in consequence of an argument with his friend, Mr Pilgrim, I think the strong probabilities are that, at the party, the prisoner was acting in a reasonably normal fashion, albeit, in the words of Mr Slattery, more energetic and louder than usual, and generally laughing and joking and make himself the centre of attention. I am persuaded that neither before, nor at the party, was the prisoner violent. 29 Attention is also required to the prisoner's past. It figured large during the course of the trial as providing a foundation for a deal of psychiatric and other medical evidence which was adduced on the issues of voluntariness, substantial impairment by reason of abnormality of mind and mental illness. Although the jury's verdict means that all of these issues were resolved adversely to the prisoner, and any findings of mine must be consistent with the jury's verdict, many of the medical issues that arose for the jury's consideration I must also address. 30 There were problems within the prisoner's home life from the time he was young. His father was not infrequently drunk and verbally abusive. There were arguments between the parents, which the prisoner and his sister found distressing. His mother left home on a number of occasions, taking the children with her, and this imposed stress on the prisoner. 31 The prisoner had many of the symptoms of attention deficit disorder, otherwise known as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Whether these symptoms were sufficiently serious to justify a clinical diagnosis was the subject of considerable dispute during the trial, Drs Skinner and Waters taking the view that the prisoner did not have the disorder; Dr Anderson taking the view that he did. Dr Quadrio seemed unable to make up her mind, giving conflicting evidence on the topic. I think the probability - I use that term advisedly for I would not be prepared to so find beyond reasonable doubt - is that he did not. In that regard, I am influenced by the extent of good or satisfactory reports as to the prisoner's academic results and behaviour at school, considered in the light of Dr Skinner's statement of some of the criteria of the disorder. Nevertheless, as I have said, the prisoner had many of the symptoms. These included disruptive conduct at school, some hyperactivity and impulsiveness. 32 The prisoner also indulged in a deal of risk-taking activity, which gave him a "high" or a "rush". These terms were used on numerous occasions during the trial, perhaps not always with the same meaning, but, for the moment, I am referring to an adrenalin high. These activities included climbing cliffs without ropes, abseiling and skateboarding near the edge of cliffs where there was a risk of serious injury or worse. A week before the shooting, the prisoner and one of his friends climbed a radio tower. I am satisfied that the prisoner's conduct in the respects dealt with in this paragraph went far beyond that of the vast majority of teenage boys. 33 Despite his youth, the prisoner indulged heavily in alcohol. His attitude might be summed up in evidence that in year 7 he did not drink heavily, becoming blind only once a month. On occasions he and a friend would drink, between them, a bottle of spirits or a case of beer. A few of them would drink a litre of wine each. Year 7 was 1995, the year in which the prisoner turned thirteen. 34 He was also a heavy user of many drugs. He first used marijuana when he was about eight or nine, taking it from the top of the piano, where his father kept it. He used it a few more times in primary school. By year 9, 1997, the prisoner was using marijuana daily. It was hydroponic, which the evidence in the case established to be much stronger than that cultivated in the ground. In year 8 the prisoner had his first acid or LSD, trip. There was a couple more in that year, fifteen or more in year 9, and in year 10 a trip only now and then. 35 In the winter of 1997 he had his first magic mushrooms. In 1998 he had them maybe a couple of times a month, including one occasion when he had nine handfuls, leading to the most intense drug experience the prisoner had. On this occasion, according to the prisoner, the wind was howling and the experience really scary. Magic mushrooms grow wild in the area where the prisoner lived. They contain a chemical, mescaline, and are similar in their effect to, and have many of the hallucinogenic properties of, LSD. 36 The prisoner first tried amphetamines, speed, at the end of 1997 or the start of 1998. Initially he snorted this about once every month or two, but then, no later than March 1999, started to inject it. Its use increased in the months leading up to the shooting. 37 The prisoner has inhaled deodorant air freshener and butane. On occasions he took tablets of friends in substantial doses. He commonly mixed his drugs. He said that there were no periods from year 7 on when he was completely free of drugs. Certainly I accept that this was so in the year or so before May 1999. He tried to cut down in early 1998 and succeeded during that year and until early 1999, to some extent, from, say, three times a week to once a week or a fortnight for cannabis and the other drugs once every two to three months, although during winter he would still have magic mushrooms quite a bit. This may well understate the extent of his use. 38 There was a deal of evidence, which I accept, to the effect that the prisoner would commonly, at drug-taking sessions, use far more of the drugs I have referred to than his friends. On the other hand, the evidence is clear that two weeks before the shooting the prisoner's mother had a discussion with him about giving up drugs. He had asserted to her that pot was all he indulged in, and I am satisfied that that was the only drug the discussion related to. 39 With a view to improving his school performance, the prisoner promised her that he would stop smoking or cut down on its use, and see a counsellor. In fact, he did cut down. I accept that his drug-taking in the fortnight prior to the shooting was as follows: On the weekend a fortnight before, he had a small amount of speed and some marijuana. On the Friday night, a week before, he had a large quantity of speed and what he regarded as a normal quantity of marijuana, about four cones. On the Saturday night he had a similar quantity of both. On the Tuesday before the shooting, he had some, not a large quantity of, speed. 40 It is also clear that violence played a large part in the prisoner's thoughts. It is mentioned in answers 431 and 432 of his ERISP. At an early stage he developed or imagined, with some frequency, what were referred to as scenarios or fantasies, wherein he would do violent things to persons who did bad things to his family. These scenarios gave him a rush, although not as high a one as speed did. Both Drs Quadrio and Waters gave evidence to the effect that during these scenarios the prisoner had in his head killed many times before the scenarios occurred, both when the prisoner was affected by drugs and when he was not, and before and after he experienced the videos referred to in the next paragraph. 41 He also enjoyed snuff movies, films centred around the actual death, generally deliberate, of human beings. It was Mr Krook who provided the prisoner with access to a number of these, entitled "Traces of Death". There seemed to have been four different films in the series, and the evidence varied as to which the prisoner saw. He himself said he saw I, III and IV, but there was other evidence that he saw II. Having regard to the similarity of theme, it is not necessary to decide who is right. 42 The Court was shown a compilation of extracts from the four. It included detailed scenes of animals being killed and their blood or other bodily fluids being drunk, though I would infer from the scenes that this was by persons of races where such conduct is normal; of a person being caught and eaten by lions; of, in slow motion, a man committing suicide; of autopsies in progress; of men on the ground being chased and shot by persons in helicopters; of other men being executed, generally by shooting; and of men being mutilated, whilst still alive. 43 I am also satisfied that Mr Krook, who the prisoner saw frequently, sought to inculpate the prisoner with ideas of violence, inter alia, advocating and seeking the prisoner's participation in attacks on some racial groups. 44 Despite the above, it must also be recognised that prior to the shooting, and apart from two incidents I shall specifically refer to, the prisoner displayed no signs of being violent. There was a wealth of evidence from his friends, and to a lesser degree from school teachers, to this effect. He was involved in some school boy fights, but there is nothing in the evidence as to these to merit further consideration. There were hunting trips with his father, but in light of his father's interest in this respect, I do not regard the prisoner's participation in the trips as indicating any violent tendency. Hunting may well be far less frequent now than it was, and many people find the idea distasteful, but many teenage boys, particularly, but not exclusively, from the country, have enjoyed it, and I am not prepared to draw any inference adverse to the prisoner from his participation in or enjoyment of such activity. The prisoner's likening the cutting off of a pig's head to cutting off of the head of a fish also argues in the direction of the conclusion at which, in this respect, I have arrived. To put the prisoner's conduct in context, it is appropriate to record Mr Jones' evidence that the pigs they shot were regarded by those on the trips as having a trophy value. 45 The two incidents which merit consideration both involved the prisoner's sister. In one she called him names, on many occasions suggesting he was homosexual. He took offence, became really angry, chased his sister around the camping area where they were, pinned her up against a tree, and held a stick up against her throat from behind and forcefully, so as to create difficulty in breathing. 46 In the second incident, in the presence of his sister and a friend, the prisoner was cutting his arms with a knife and, for a time, resisted their attempts to stop him doing so. The prisoner was drunk at the time and, although there was some evidence suggesting that he was more drunk on other occasions yet remembered more afterwards, I can see no justification for concluding that this incident is a pointer to anything. The prisoner's actions on that occasion are, it seems to me, quite consistent with a tendency to attention-seek, copy Mr Krook or indulge in risks or, under the effects of alcohol, test limits or explore his pain threshold. 47 I should add that I do not see, in the incident where he held a stick up against his sister's throat, anything of significance either. Anger and physical response from children is sufficiently common to not make it possible to draw any significant adverse inference from that incident. 48 I turn to the medical opinions in the case. Undoubtedly, the jury's verdict means that some of the evidence cannot be accepted for present purposes, but I must address those views. 49 Dr Teychenne advanced the proposition that the prisoner had, on the night of the shooting, an epileptic seizure, manifesting itself in rage. I do not see how Dr Teychenne's conclusions can stand with the verdict, but, in any event, I found Drs Spira and Brew more impressive and their evidence to the contrary far more convincing. However, I need not lengthen these remarks with a detailed analysis of why I was led to these conclusions. 50 Another issue which can be disposed of quickly is the topic of brain damage. There was some evidence, particularly from Dr Reid and from Dr Teychenne, to the effect that the prisoner did have some, albeit limited, brain damage. There was evidence from other specialists that the prisoner did not. In my view, the probability is that the prisoner did not have any such damage, but I am persuaded, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no brain damage which contributed to the shooting. 51 Dr Skinner, called by the Crown, was of the view that the most likely explanation for the prisoner's actions is that he had been desensitised to violence and killing, and he sought a rush or a high as he had experienced from watching the snuff videos while taking drugs. She thought that altered sensory experiences of apparent detachment and heightened auditory sensation of wind sounds described by the prisoner might have been flashbacks to a previous drug-related experience and thus may have reminded him of the rush he felt and heightening his experience on the night of the alleged offences. The fact that he had sex so soon afterwards suggested to her that he was still experiencing a rush from the killing. 52 Dr Skinner did, however, agree that it was difficult to understand what might have motivated the prisoner and she had found it difficult in trying to provide a psychiatric explanation for his actions. She agreed that the terms in which she had expressed herself meant that there may be explanations other than the ones that she had advanced. She agreed that what she had asserted to be a strong, motivating factor meant that the prisoner was looking for some pleasure or joy out of killing the deceased. She accepted that if the prisoner was looking for a high, he could have just gone and procured a hit of speed or magic mushrooms or LSD or some other form of drug to get his high. 53 She agreed that the prisoner exhibited a significant degree of impulsiveness. She said that the alcohol consumed by the prisoner would have made him more inclined to act impulsively and would have caused disinhibition. 54 She also agreed that the prisoner, during the night, may have experienced a transient state of depersonalisation. That concept figured large during the trial. It is also relevant to the question of sentence, so some explanation of it is necessary. A textbook explanation of the concept which was given in evidence included the following: "Depersonalisation refers to an alteration in one's experience and awareness of the self, leading to feelings of being unreal or detached from one's own body, of feeling like an automaton. It is often accompanied by the complaint that the individual lacks all feelings and sensory experiences.... Mild sensory distortions, but not hallucinations, are commonly associated with the experience. Depersonalisation is seen in a variety of neurological and psychiatric disorders and is common in complex partial seizures. It may occur in the context of depression, anxiety disorders, or certain personality disorders or as an entity by itself (depersonalisation disorder). Transient episodes of depersonalisation and derealisation occur frequently in normal persons, particularly during states of fatigue, sleep deprivation, or stressful situations such as bereavement, learning of a terminal diagnosis, or sudden awareness that one is about to be in an inescapable vehicle accident." 55 A diagnosis of a depersonalisation disorder requires repetition of symptoms of depersonalisation or a depersonalised state on a number of occasions. There was general, though not universal, agreement, among the doctors who were called, that somewhere between fifty and seventy per cent of the population experience depersonalisation at some time in their lives. However, there was significant disagreement as to the consequences of such a state. 56 Dr Skinner agreed with the passage from DSM-IV, which the evidence showed was an authoritative work in the field of psychiatry, that: "The individual with depersonalisation disorder maintains in fact reality testing, eg awareness that it is only a feeling and that he or she is not really an automaton",