New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R .v. TERAGUCHI [2002] NSWSC 48 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70098/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 February 2002 PARTIES : Regina Mariya TERAGUCHI JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1 COUNSEL : Mr P.S. Dare for the Crown Mr D.J. Humphreys for the Accused SOLICITORS : S.E. O'Connor for the Crown Legal Aid Commission of NSW for the Accused CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law- accused mentally ill - whether accused fit to be tried. LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 CASES CITED : R v Pritchard (1836) 7 Car. & P. R v Presser [1958] VR 45 DECISION : See Judgment at Paragraph 22 - 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION Criminal Graham Barr J 8 February 2002 70098/01 Regina v Mariya TERAGUCHI JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Mariya Teraguchi has been charged with the murder on 24 July 2001 at Yagoona of her mother, Ryoko Teraguchi. The Crown case is that the accused left Rozelle psychiatric hospital, where she was a mental patient, went to the house of her parents and stabbed her mother to death. 2 The question of the unfitness of the accused to be tried was raised and the Solicitor General, by virtue of the power conferred upon him as delegate of the Attorney General, determined on 22 November 2001 that there should be an enquiry whether the accused were fit or unfit to be tried for the murder. 3 The legislation provides for the trial of such issues by jury, but the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 provides also for the accused to elect for trial by judge alone. On 3 December 2001 the accused signed an election for trial by judge alone. 4 Where an accused person who makes such an election suffers from a mental illness, as this accused does, the Court must be careful to ensure that the accused made an informed election and had the capacity so to elect. The Court has received evidence from Ms Dianne Tipper, a solicitor with the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales who has long experience in acting for persons experiencing mental impairment, including those suffering from psychiatric disorders, intellectual disability and the like. Some few days before the election was made Ms Tipper interviewed the accused and had the assistance of an interpreter in the Japanese language. Ms Tipper swore an affidavit on 5 December 2001 and, having read it, I am satisfied that the accused was fully informed before making her election about the nature of the enquiry into her fitness to be tried and about the respective parts played by the several participants. 5 The Court has received reports written by Dr. Boettcher, Dr. Nielssen and Dr. Westmore, psychiatrists. Dr. Boettcher at present has the care of the accused. Notwithstanding their universal opinion that the accused is suffering from a serious mental illness, they agree that when she made her election for trial by judge alone the accused had the mental capacity to do so. 6 Accordingly, it is appropriate that the trial into the question of the accused's fitness to be tried be held before a judge alone. 7 This matter has been able to be dealt with in a shortened form because the evidence about the issues to be tried is all one way. 8 In order that an accused person may receive a fair trial, there are certain minimum standards with which he or she must comply. Those standards are based on a well known explanation given by Alderson B in R v Pritchard (1836) 7 Car. & P. at 304 as elaborated by Smith J in R v Presser [1958] VR 45. They require the ability to understand the nature of the charge, to plead to the charge and to exercise the right of challenge of jurors, to understand the nature of the proceedings, namely, that it is an enquiry as to whether the accused committed the offence charged, to follow the course of the proceedings, to understand the substantial effect of any evidence that may be given in support of the prosecution and to make a defence or answer to the charge. 9 The deceased, the accused, the accused's younger brother and the father of the children, Mr James Hill, formerly lived in Japan. They came to Australia several years ago and settled here permanently. At the time that the deceased died, she and Mr Hill were living together in a house at Yagoona. 10 The accused was born on 3 August 1974. During her time in Japan she used illegal drugs and exhibited signs of mental illness. 11 After arriving in Australia she lived at first with her parents. She continued to use illegal drugs. In 1994 she was admitted to Banks House, the psychiatric department at Bankstown hospital. She had threatened both parents with a knife and was diagnosed as having had an acute psychotic episode. She was treated and released. During the following year she was again admitted to Banks House. The diagnosis was schizophrenia. She believed that her parents were impostors and that her mother was trying to poison her. 12 During 1998 she was twice more admitted to Banks House. 13 During these times the accused had been living in a flat provided for her by her parents, but was not coping well, and in 2000, after an initial temporary stay at Rozelle hospital, she became an inpatient there. The ward in which she was housed was not secure and she left the hospital on occasions. The Crown case is that on the day in question she took a taxi to her parents' house. In the kitchen of the house she had an argument with her mother, took a knife and stabbed her many times. 14 Dr. Boettcher diagnoses the accused as suffering from a dangerous variant of chronic paranoid schizophrenia known as Capgras syndrome. The manifestation of the syndrome is the accused's unshakable belief that the person she encountered in her parents' house was not her mother but an impostor who, having undergone plastic surgery in order to look like her mother, took her place. The accused believes that her mother is in Japan. According to Dr. Boettcher, the illness is now of long standing. He believes that the accused is unlikely to respond in future to treatment and that she will retain her delusional thought disorder and general paranoid ideation indefinitely. 15 Dr. Boettcher thinks that the accused is not fit for trial. Although she understands the charge which has been brought against her, she believes that it was someone other that her mother whom she killed. She would have trouble working out that she has the right to challenge members of the jury panel and would be inclined to rely on voices in her head which she describes as "astro-travellers". She would find it hard to understand the nature of the proceedings in a trial because of comments she perceived as coming from the "astro-travellers". Those voices and paranoid ideas would cause her quickly to lose track of the progress of court proceedings. She has a strong inclination to dismiss important issues and might not be prepared to take seriously evidence given against her. She would be unable rationally to decide what defence to rely on because of clouding of thought processes. She would have trouble conveying to her legal representatives her version of events. 16 Dr. Nielssen agrees that the accused would be unable to follow proceedings and give instructions unaffected by her fixed delusional beliefs. Dr. Westmore observed that the accused has a significantly impaired understanding of the issues canvassed in R v Presser and would be unable to provide her solicitor with instructions during the course of any protracted legal proceedings. She would be unable to follow much of the proceedings. She would be unable to understand that she could enter a mental illness defence or what such a defence would mean. 17 In view of the unanimous opinion of the three psychiatrists the only conclusion to which the Court can come is that the accused is unfit to be tried. 18 The scheme of the legislation which covers enquiries of this kind requires the Court when a person is found unfit to be tried to refer that person to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. It also provides for the making of other incidental orders but I think that none arises in the present case. 19 The duty of the Mental Health Review Tribunal when a matter has been referred to it following a finding of unfitness is to review the case of that person and report to the Court in due course. The most important thing that the Tribunal does is to decide whether in its opinion the person will become fit to be tried within twelve months. If that is the ultimate view of the Tribunal, it reports that fact to the Court and a further enquiry is held into the question whether the accused is unfit to be tried and if the result is that the accused is not unfit, that is fit to be tried, a trial might be expected to follow. 20 If in the view of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, however, the accused is unlikely to be fit to be tried within twelve months, a special hearing may be held. At such a hearing the accused may be acquitted, though not convicted. The accused may raise any defence which could properly be raised if the hearing were a trial, including the defence that he or she is not guilty because of mental illness. If the accused is found on the limited evidence available to have committed the offence, then the duty of the Court is to impose a limiting term which is in effect a statement of the sentence it would have imposed if the accused had been convicted of the offence charged. 21 Those matters must await the future and the only thing that the Court is required now to do is to refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act. 22 I find the accused unfit to be tried by reason of mental illness. She is remanded in custody pending a determination by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 16 Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act. ********** Last Modified: 03/06/2002 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.