STATE OF TASMANIA v SEAN GRANT GLEESON 15 APRIL 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE MARTIN AJ
Mr Gleeson, you were charged with attempted murder and a jury found you not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity. In short, late on 4 November 2021 you attacked the victim with a knife and stabbed him multiple times. In view of my directions, the jury must have been satisfied that when you stabbed the victim you intended to kill him. I am also satisfied you possessed that intent.
The facts of the night in question, and the history of your mental state up to and including the stabbing, were not in dispute. You were born in March 1970 and you were diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2008, although your history suggests you were experiencing a range of psychotic symptoms going back to 2005. It appears that prior to the diagnosis, you developed the psychotic illness of schizophrenia when you began to experience auditory hallucinations, believing you were hearing persecutory noises and voices when you were in the community. At other times you believed intruders were entering your flat. Over time your paranoia began to centre on your father who you believed possessed information about you. You reached the point where you believed you had to do something drastic and that belief lead to the circumstances of your offending in 2008 when, in substance, you kidnapped your father and step-mother, and then assaulted them in an attempt to glean information.
On that occasion you were found not guilty in relation to your offending against your father and step-mother by reason of insanity. Eventually you were placed under a supervision order in March 2009, which remained in force until it was revoked on 21 March 2017. Once a regime of anti-psychotic medication was implemented, you made steady progress and developed insight into your psychotic disorder. You lived a relatively solitary existence within the community, continuing to comply with your medication. In March 2017, in view of your improvement, the supervision order was revoked, but your psychiatric care remained under the direction of the Community Forensic Mental Health Services. You were treated as a voluntary patient without incident.
In about May 2020 you moved to the address where, eventually, you attempted to murder the owner of the property. You and others rented rooms from the victim, sharing a kitchen. For the remainder of 2020 and into the early months of 2021 your mental state remained stable. You were regularly reviewed by the Community Forensic Mental Health Services and there was no evidence of any functional decline. You remained compliant with your medication.
A report from a psychiatrist, Dr Jordan, reports that given your presumed level of insight, and history of mental stability, albeit with medication, in April 2021 your care moved from the Community Forensic Mental Health Service to your general practitioner. However, and unfortunately, you did not attend upon your general practitioner, and when your last month of supply of medication ran out, you did not fill further scripts. You decided not to fill the next script for your anti-psychotic medication and, a month later, believing there had not been any change to your mental health, you decided to continue without anti-psychotic medication.
Over the period from May to November 2021, you continued your solitary existence, often walking at night with your cat. However, your mental state deteriorated and, increasingly, you felt intimidated and bullied by the owner of the property, the victim of your crime. You came to believe that the victim was orchestrating a campaign against you to the point where you believed you were being followed in the community at the direction of the victim. You began carrying a knife for protection. You believed your existence was being interfered with and that, at times, the victim was threatening you through the bathroom wall.
It must be said clearly that your beliefs about the victim were completely and utterly without any semblance of reality. The victim came to Australia as a refugee and worked extraordinary hard to become a useful member of the community. He has been successful in that regard and in his business activities, running more than one business. He treated you with kindness and generosity.
There were various signs of your mental decline. You shopped less and less because of your paranoia and sense of fear in the community, losing approximately 10 kilograms in weight. Your room was a mess. You held a particular interest in the occult and began to expend more energy seeking spiritual protection. You had rituals. Eventually you came to believe that your cat was being poisoned by the victim.
During the evening of 4 November 2021 you returned to the home having walked your cat. You were carrying a knife. The victim heard noises outside his room and opened the door whereupon, immediately and without warning, you thrust the knife forward and inflicted a penetrating wound to the victim’s abdomen. You then continued to attack the victim stabbing him in the chest and, probably the neck, although the wound to the neck may have occurred later. You told the psychiatrist that you thought the victim was going to thump you, to kill you, and you struck out believing in your paranoid and delusional state that you had to attack the victim to prevent him from attacking you.
The victim managed to push you aside and ran from the premises calling for help. He ran a significant distance such that eventually his feet were badly blistered. You chased after the victim and continually abused him, told him you were going to finish him and that you would kill him. The victims pleas that you stop were ignored by you. You stabbed the victim multiple times around his body. You believed if you did not kill the victim, he would come back and get you.
Eventually there was a struggle and the victim got on top of you, but you were still trying to strike him with a knife. Police intervened ultimately after calls from bystanders. The body worn camera footage of you and the victim is confronting, and demonstrates that you were in a severely florid and paranoid state. The victim was severely injured and it is pure luck that you did not kill him.
As I said earlier, the victim had done nothing but be kind and generous to you. He was a most impressive witness.
There was no dispute that at the time of your attack upon the victim you possessed paranoid and delusional beliefs without any foundation in reality. You were suffering the psychotic symptoms of your disease of the mind, namely, schizophrenia. Everything you saw and believed was seen and believed through the lens of your psychotic condition. Through that lens, you believed it was reasonable to attack the victim. It was perfectly plain from the evidence that by reason of your mental disease, you were rendered incapable of knowing that you ought not stab the victim. In those circumstances, the defence commonly known as insanity was made out and by reason of s 16 of the Criminal Code you are not criminally responsible for your attempt to murder the victim.
As a consequence of the jury verdict, I am required to decide whether to make a restriction order or a supervision order. The restriction order would result in you being detained in a secure mental health unit until the order is discharged by the Supreme Court, which could not occur in less than two years, or another form of order could be made, such as supervision and treatment. I ordered a report from Dr Jordan because he appeared to me to be the most appropriate practitioner to assist me.
By October 2022 your demeanour had become essentially appropriate and rapport with Dr Jordan was easily established. At that time there was no evidence of any psychomotor abnormalities, or of any formal thought disorder. Although you still retain some misgivings about the victim, you did not describe any overt, current paranoid ideation. There was still some ongoing evidence of abnormal perceptual experiences such as intermittent auditory hallucinations.
The report from Dr Jordan is particularly helpful. He summarised the current situation and the primary competing considerations. It is not necessary for me to quote the report of Dr Jordan. I agree with the views that he expressed. In my opinion, at this time, a supervision order would be an inappropriate and inadequate response and the protection of the public demands a restriction order and that was the view expressed by Dr Jordan with which I agree. I have had regard to the principle set out in s 34 of the Act, that restrictions on your freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to a minimum consistent with the safety of the community. I note that Dr Jordan was also alert to that principle. In all the circumstances I have reached the clear view that the appropriate order is a restriction order and I order accordingly.
I note that under s 37 of the Act, the Mental Health Tribunal can review the order within 12 months and every 12 months after that.