R. v. Singh

2003BCSC1455 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HMTQ v. Singh 2003 BCSC 1455 Date: 20030905 Docket: X062754 Registry: New Westminster Her Majesty The Queen Against Mangal Singh Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Wedge Oral Ruling on Mental Disorder Hearing September 5, 2003 Counsel for the Crown M. Gillespie Counsel for the Defence G. Bowen Place of Trial/Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. [1] THE COURT: Mangal Singh is charged with the second degree murder of Janki Amma Singh, Mr. Singh's wife of almost 50 years. The real issue here is whether he was, at the time the offence was committed, suffering from a mental disorder such that he was not criminally responsible for the acts then committed. [2] The tragic circumstances of this case culminated on March 2, 2002, when Mr. Singh suffocated his wife in the early morning hours, but the underlying events of that morning began at least a year earlier when Mr. Singh had his first encounter with the mental health system. In March 2001 Mr. Singh was first diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. Prior to that time, his relationship with his wife and family could only be characterized as a healthy and happy one. However, in March 2001, he was prescribed antidepressant medication as a result of being diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. Shortly thereafter, he was also prescribed an antipsychotic medication known as Alanzapine. [3] Throughout the balance of the year 2001, Mr. Singh was seen by various psychiatric services in the community. In November 2001, he attempted suicide. He was, as a result of that attempt, hospitalized at St. Paul's Hospital. A psychiatric assessment at that time raised the possibility that Mr. Singh may be suffering not only from major depression, but also from psychosis. [4] After discharge from hospital, arrangements were made for Mr. Singh to be admitted to a medical transition centre for further assessment. However, he was very anxious about being away from his home and left the centre after half a day. [5] Mr. Singh's psychiatric problems persisted. In January 2002, as a result of ongoing symptoms, Mr. Singh was referred to a community mental health team in Surrey. The psychiatrist who saw Mr. Singh also diagnosed him with major depression and prescribed a drug regimen for his condition. [6] Over the next two months, however, for a variety of reasons I need not go into here, Mr. Singh's medications were quite abruptly altered. Significantly, the antipsychotic medication he had been taking was discontinued. [7] A few days before March 2, 2002, Mr. Singh began reporting fears that he was going to harm his son and his son's wife. He became increasingly anxious and agitated. A matter of a day or two before March 2, Mr. Singh's daughter called the mental health team with concerns about her father, and he was again prescribed an antipsychotic medication. However, it was clearly too late, and, on the morning of March 2, Mr. Singh, believing his wife was ill and asking to die, killed her by smothering her with a pillow. He made no effort to conceal his crime. He went to his daughter and told her what he had done. [8] Mr. Singh, in a long statement to police a matter of a few days later, described events leading to his wife's death. It was clear from the statement that while he knew he had committed an act that was legally wrong, he continued to believe it was an act he was justified in committing because he understood his wife wanted to die. Mr. Singh was, by order of a Provincial Court judge, assessed by Dr. Todd Tomita at the Provincial Forensic Psychiatric Hospital. Dr. Tomita concluded, based on extensive interviews with Mr. Singh, Mr. Singh's family, the health care providers who earlier treated Mr. Singh, and a review of all of the medical records, that while Mr. Singh was fit to stand trial, he was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder. That assessment was concurred with by Dr. Garren Garchanian (phonetic), a psychiatrist at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital who took over the care of Mr. Singh in September of 2002. [9] Mr. Singh has continued to suffer from psychotic episodes, although ECT treatment in the past few months have somewhat alleviated those symptoms. Medical evidence since September 2002, suggests that Mr. Singh must continue to be treated intensively by persons who specialize in forensic psychiatry. [10] I am satisfied that Mr. Singh was, at the time he committed the offence with which he is charged, not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder. It is abundantly clear that he was actively psychotic at the time he committed the offence. He may or may not have understood the legal consequences of his actions - I tend to be of the view that he, in fact, did not - but he clearly did not understand the moral wrongfulness of the act. He believed, due to the psychotic delusions from which he was suffering, that killing his wife was both necessary and justified. [11] I agree with counsel for the Crown that the facts of this case are very close to those in the HMTQ v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, and, as in Oommen, the crux of the inquiry is whether Mr. Singh lacked the capacity to rationally decide whether his actions on March 2, 2002, were right or wrong, and hence to make a rational choice about whether to commit them. [12] I am satisfied, on the basis of the psychiatric evidence and the admissions of fact filed in the proceedings, that Mr. Singh's delusions deprived him of the ability to rationally evaluate what he was doing. He is exempted from criminal responsibility by operation of s.16(1) of the Criminal Code because, again in the words of HMTQ v. Oommen, a mental disorder at the time of the offence deprived him of the capacity for rational perception. [13] Accordingly, pursuant to s.672.34 of the Criminal Code, I find that while Mr. Singh committed the act forming the basis of the offence charged, he is exempt from criminal responsibility. I will accede to the request of the Crown to refer this matter for disposition to a Review Board pursuant to s.672.47 of the Criminal Code. (EXCERPT CONCLUDED) "C.A. Wedge, J." The Honourable Madam Justice C.A. Wedge