R v Line [2004] NSWSC 1148

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Line [2004] NSWSC 1148 HEARING DATE(S) : 14 May 2004, 12 November 2004, 29 November 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J DECISION : Released pursuant to s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 on conditions (see paragraph [19])

CATCHWORDS : trial by judge alone - special verdict - not guilty by reason of mental illness - conditional release - supervision of Mental Health Review Tribunal LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 s38, s39 CASES CITED : R v Line [2004] NSWSC 414, unreported, 14 May 2004 PARTIES : Crown - Deborah Gay Line FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2003/83 COUNSEL : Ms W Robinson QC - Crown Ms T Evers SOLICITORS : K Nightingale - Crown M Zahra

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

Monday 29 November 2004

2003/83 Regina v Deborah Gay Line

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: On 14 May 2004 Deborah Gay Line stood trial by judge alone on a charge that on 7 October 2003 she murdered Jasmine Line, her eleven year old daughter. She pleaded that she was not guilty on the ground of mental illness. 2 After hearing evidence, I have found pursuant to section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 a special verdict, that is that Ms Line was not guilty by reason of mental illness (R v Line [2004] NSWSC 414, unreported, 14 May 2004). 3 The facts of the events giving rise to the charge can be found briefly stated in my judgment of 14 May. The death of Jasmine Line occurred on 7 October 2003. There is further reference to the facts stated in a medical report of Dr D Greenberg of 23 January 2004 prepared for the purposes of the trial and there tendered. The information for that outline of facts I understand was provided to Dr Greenberg by Ms Line herself. 4 Ms Line had suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for a decade or more. It seems that in the weeks or months prior to October 2003 her symptoms had exacerbated. She had had auditory hallucinations in the form of voices. Inter alia, the voices told her to kill Jasmine. She discontinued her psychiatric medication in about July 2003. She sought help without success. She came to believe that Jasmine embodied Satan. 5 In the afternoon of 7 October Ms Line told Jasmine that she was going to kill her. She gave Jasmine Valium in a glass of milo. The Valium did not induce sleep in Jasmine. Ms Line told Jasmine to lie down, pinched her nose, covered her mouth with her own hand and pushed on her windpipe. The child struggled but did not scream. 6 Immediately after Jasmine's death Ms Line attended the local police station to inform police of what she had done and to seek their assistance. At that time she did not believe that she had done anything wrong. 7 On 14 May I ordered that until further order, Ms Line be detained in the Bunya Unit at the Cumberland Hospital in Parramatta and stood the proceedings over for final disposition after medical assessment of Ms Line. 8 The matter was re-listed for further hearing on 12 November 2004. On that date I was provided with two psychiatric reports, the first that of Dr Michael Giuffrida who was and is Ms Line's treating psychiatrist and the second that of Dr Olav Nielssen who, at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, commented on Dr Giuffrida's report. There is little, if any, area of contention between the two practitioners. To the extent that there is any, I accept, as Dr Nielssen himself suggested was appropriate, the views of Dr Giuffrida as Ms Line's treating psychiatrist. 9 Dr Giuffrida traced the history of Ms Line's mental illness. He recounted a ten-year history of relapsing psychotic illness labelled schizo-affective disorder, a form of schizophrenia. Ms Line has in the past been admitted to various psychiatric institutions. She developed paranoid psychotic illness and responded well to treatment, generally complying with the recommended treatment. 10 In his report Dr Giuffrida outlined some disturbing elements concerning Ms Line's asserted attempts to obtain treatment, especially during a particularly florid episode of her illness, with no success, the tragic outcome being the death of her daughter. It would not be right or fair to make findings of fact based upon the second-hand assertions contained in the report. (By saying that I mean no reflection on Dr Giuffrida who has accepted what has been told to him.) I bear in mind that no response has been called for on the part of the various institutions or individuals concerned and none has been made. Nevertheless, the assertions contained in the report are of sufficient concern to warrant further investigation. 11 Ms Line has been under the psychiatric care of Dr Giuffrida since she was taken into custody on 3 October 2003. He reported on initially slow but ultimately complete recovery from the psychotic symptoms and the acquisition of insight into the delusional nature of the beliefs that led her to kill her daughter. Ms Line understands the need to comply with her treatment requirements. Her recovery has awakened her to the gravity of her conduct with consequent feelings of grief and remorse. She gives no cause for concern about her conduct, although she is anxious, at times tearful and somewhat fragile. She is able to maintain regular contact and an affectionate relationship with her mother who is very supportive and her younger, surviving, daughter, who is in the care of Ms Line senior. 12 Dr Giuffrida recommended that the court exercise its powers under s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. That section, quite recently amended, now gives the court wide powers to release a person found not guilty on the ground of mental illness and empowers the court to impose conditions on that release. A consequential amendment to the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 includes in the definition of forensic patient a person released under s39. This means that such a person is subject to the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. 13 Although Dr Giuffrida recommended that any such release order be subject to conditions, he did not then specify the conditions he considered appropriate. Dr Nielssen agreed with the recommendation that Ms Line be released pursuant to s39, but added a recommendation that certain specified conditions be imposed. These were: "1 That treatment be given in the form of injections of long acting anti-psychotic medication, initially at doses equivalent to Ms Line's current treatment. 2 Transfer from the Bunya Unit to a lower security setting does not take place until the new medication regime has been established. 3 That Ms Line's accommodation and leave conditions be determined by her treating specialist with the consent of the Mental Health Review Tribunal."