R v Bloomfield[2015] QDC 339

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application by the Crown under s. 163 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (PSA), with the consent of the Attorney-General, for an indefinite sentence to be imposed on the defendant in respect of the offence in count 9 of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Trent Miteff–Lozell on 4 February 2013.  The offences in counts 1-8 put the subject offence in context.

2. [2]
   The facts are referred to in the Schedule, exhibit 4 and in paras 8-13 of the Crown’s written submissions exhibit 17 and I need not repeat them in any detail here. The defendant said to the complainant and his co-complainant, Caleb Caisley, that

• he had killed someone before
• he couldn’t wait to chop them up and throw them in the river
• he had a gun but would rather cut them up and throw them in the river and
• made many more threats to injure and kill both of them.

The complainants were aged 16 and 15.

3. [3]
   The defendant continued talking about chopping both the complainants up. He then produced a pair of scissors and grabbed Caleb Caisley’s tongue and pushed the scissors onto it drawing a small amount of blood. He then cut off a significant part of the complainant’s left ear. He then took pictures of the ear with a mobile phone. The effect of what the defendant did is clearly shown in the photos, exhibits 10, 14 and 15. The defendant said he got the scissors from the bag of one of the complainants; they deny this. I accept the version of the complainants.

4. [4]
   The defendant is 21 years of age having been born on 16 November 1984. He has a limited criminal history, exhibit 5, but it includes offences of assault occasioning bodily harm, one offence of armed robbery in company where a knife was used and two offences of robbery in company, committed in January and February 2012, which involved bullying and intimidating two young people sitting in a park during the day. For those offences he was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years on 25 February 2012. A parole release date of 24 October 2012 was fixed. He was thus on parole when the present offences were committed.

5. [5]
   The pre-sentence report dated 24 February 2014, exhibit 2 refers to an admitted limited insight as to what brought about the current offences and uncertainty on the defendant’s part as to how to ensure further acts of violence are not committed. The author expressed concern about the ability to mitigate the defendant’s risk of re-offending. His significant lack of insight into his criminal behaviour is considered a high factor for recidivism.

6. [6]
   He has been examined by two psychiatrists, Dr Andrew Aboud and Dr Velimir Kovacevic.

7. [7]
   Dr Aboud examined him on 3 July 2014. His report is exhibit 1. He says the defendant said to him

“‘I left school at the beginning of Grade 12.  I stopped playing footy, ran away from home, and lived under a bridge in the city with street kids… Why?  The need for freedom.  I wanted to do what I wanted.  Growing up too fast; trying to be an adult instead of a kid… That’s when the robberies started… I robbed a Night Owl for smokes.  I was armed with a box cutting knife… Then I robbed a bottle shop for the drink, so I could get drunk.  I pounded the attendant… Then I stood over a couple for money to get drugs.  I verballed them, you know, threatened them… That’s my previous criminal stuff… It all happened in a fairly short period.’  I asked him about the context, ‘I was homeless.  I was fraternizing with street kids… I was either drunk or drinking or I was injecting speed.’”

His report continued

“According to his self report he has no formal psychiatric history.  He has never been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and has never previously seen a psychiatrist.  He denied ever having attended his general Practitioner for mental health reasons.

Material time

‘I’m worried about the things I do… I was sober and I hadn’t taken drugs… I saw two guys… I smelt weed on them and I thought I’d have some weed with them.  We went to the jetty.  I grabbed a pair of scissors from their bag.  When I had the scissors in my hand, I had the idea to cut them.  I was going to cut off his tongue… something came over me… I did not come armed with a pair of scissors, it was from their bag… I didn’t rob them of jewelry or a watch… the police never found any of those things with me.  The offence wasn’t planned.  I just wanted to smoke some weed with them, and then when I saw the scissors, I had the thought of harming them with it… That trouble me, because if I can do that in split second, then what else am I capable of doing?’

He admitted cutting one of the teenager’s ear lobe off with a blade of the scissors, and volunteered that he enjoyed doing so.  He told me that he considered cutting up his victim to a greater extent than he had, and the main reason for stopping was that the blade was not cutting cleanly, being too blunt.  He added that he had considered eating the pieces of ear that he had severed.

Mr Bloomfield then iterated:  ‘I held the scissors.  I said ‘stand there’ and said ‘Put out your tongue.’  I was thinking I wanted to cut his tongue out… I was feeling no emotions… It wasn’t so much the power over him… I just knew that I wanted to cut him up.’

Morbid thoughts

Mr Bloomfield disclosed that he first experienced thoughts of wanting to harm others ‘when I was younger, about ten years old… I used to yell that I’d cut my brother’s head off… it happened when I was angry.’  On further questioning he described how he would feel intensely angry and upset about being bullied at school and would displace his anger and negative emotions toward his younger brother.  ‘I was bullying him’.  He described that between the age of ten and thirteen his angry thoughts developed into a narrative or fantasy of harming his brother, but not one that he genuinely entertained acting on.

He told me that at age fourteen he felt so angry with a boy who had been victimizing him that he decided to stab the boy as revenge, and took a butcher’s knife to school for that purpose.  ‘We had a fight and weeks later I thought I wasn’t going to be able to let this go… I took the knife… I wanted to hack into him… but I didn’t’.  He said that he became distracted by other boys as he entered the school gates and decided to play truant with them instead.

He described how by the age of fifteen these morbid thoughts had developed into broader and more well formed fantasies of ‘cutting people open, pulling organs out, to see what they looked like… thoughts of cutting people up… not to kill them… I thought it was a phase… it felt normal to me… I never told anyone… I know it’s wrong and my concern is not that I don’t enjoy the thought, but that I know it’s not allowed and could lead to prison.’

‘It’s got to the point where if I think someone is looking at me in the wrong way, I’ll have thoughts of cutting them up and these thoughts will make me feel better… I don’t even have to feel angry any more… sometimes I’ll have these thoughts about people I’m just talking to… stab them, cut them up, cut their head off, cut their arms off’.

‘Other people would describe me as kind and generous and gentle, but it’s like there’s this other side to me, a dark side.’

He is not prescribed any medications.  He has not been receiving any psychological therapy. 

PRESENTATION AT INTERVIEW

There were no abnormalities in his speech and there was certainly no evidence of disordered thinking.  His mood appeared euthymic.  He denied features of mood disorder.  He denied any thoughts of self harm or suicide. 

When I asked him about his thoughts in respect of his offences, he replied:  ‘It’s not normal, is it?  I’ve got a serious problem, a psychological problem and I need help… treatment… I’m scared that I’m going to do something like this again or worse’.

He said that he felt sorry for his victims.  He reiterated that he had not planned to attack them and that his plan had been to smoke cannabis with them.  He denied that he had robbed them, and insisted that his cutting of one of his victim’s ear had not been premeditated.  He said that it was when he saw the scissors that he decided to cut his victims.  He said that he had enjoyed doing it, and recognised that this was an abnormal reaction to such behaviour.

OPINION

Diagnostic issues & Clinical formulation

Carl Bloomfield does not, in my opinion, suffer from a major mental illness, such as psychotic illness or a mood disorder.  From the information available, I believe he would likely attract diagnoses of alcohol and stimulant drug abuse disorders.  He also appears to harbour some antisocial personality traits. 

Risk issues

In committing the index behaviour for which he is to be sentenced, he first considered severing the tongue of one of his victims.  He then severed part of an ear of the other victim.  He has disclosed that he contemplated eating the severed ear.  He has admitted that he only stopped because he thought the blade of the scissors was too blunt to continue. 

While he disputes aspects of the charges that suggest premeditation of his violent behaviour, he accepts that he did it and that he wanted to do it and that he enjoyed doing it.  In some respects the issue of premeditation, from a risk assessment perspective, may be immaterial.  While premeditation of such behaviour would be very concerning, unplanned and spontaneous acting out of such behaviour would be of no less concern. 

It is clearly very worrying that his sadistic fantasies have escalated to actual manifest behaviours.  It is evident from his given history that he had almost progressed to manifest behaviour at age fourteen, when he took a knife to school in order to take revenge on a boy who had bullied him.  Fortunately he did not make good on his intent.

The egosyntonic nature (ie that he has derived pleasure) of his fantasies and behaviour gives rise to further concern in respect of risk profile.

One notes that he was not intoxicated or under the influence of illicit substances at the material time.

In my view, Mr Bloomfield represents a significant risk to others and, if unaddressed, this will most likely remain the case.

Future management

Mr Bloomfield is a disturbed young man who clearly requires psychological help.  It is important to highlight that he is aware that he has a serious problem and is actively requesting assistance.  The aetiology of his sadistic fantasies requires further exploration.  It may, or may not, be the case that there exists other factors, in addition to his stated history of having been bullied, that might have led him to develop such psychopathology.  The extent and nature of his fantasies requires further investigation.  He will require highly specialised psychological treatment.  Such therapy is unlikely to be routinely available in the prison setting, unless specifically commissioned by the corrective service.

I recommend consideration be given to prescribing him an SSRI antidepressant in a relatively high dose.  There is some evidence that such medication can have an effect to reduce the obsessive thinking that persons with problematic fantasy are prone.

It is my recommendation that he not only receive indicated psychological therapy while he is in custody, but that consideration is given to continuing such therapy when he is released into a community setting, perhaps as a condition of parole.

Given his young age, relative intelligence, acceptance that he has a serious problem, recognition that his problem is psychological, and preparedness to embrace treatment, I would suggest that he might respond favourably to therapy.  Of course, his response to treatment will need to be evaluated, and he will need to be carefully assessed in respect of risk at key future points in the release decision-making process.”

8. [8]
   In an email dated 15 April 2015, Dr Aboud said

“Mr Carl Bloomfield suffers from: antisocial personality disorder with obsessive sadistic fantasy and acted out behaviour; alcohol abuse and stimulant drug abuse disorders.  He would benefit from further assessment and psychological therapy in respect of his sadistic cognitions.  Such therapy would be beyond the scope of Queensland Health’s Prison Health Service or Prison Mental Health Service, and would instead be available if privately commissioned by the Queensland Corrective Services.  He may benefit from trial prescription of an SSRI antidepressant at a high dose to address obsessive thinking.  Such prescription may be available via Queensland Health’s Prison Health Service.  He would also benefit from therapy to address alcohol and substance misuse.  Such therapy may be available in the context of programs/courses run by Queensland Corrective Services.

Mr Bloomfield does not suffer from a major mental illness, such as psychotic disorder or mood disorder, and thus would not typically meet criteria to be managed by Queensland Health’s Prison Mental Health Service.”^[1]

9. [9]
   Dr Aboud has since reported that his opinion and recommendations remain the same if the facts were found to be those recalled by the complainants rather than the defendant.^[2]

10. [10]
    He has still not received the high dose SSRI anti-depressant recommended by Dr Aboud. As may be apparent from what follows this may be due to confusion on the defendant’s part about who he was to see.

11. [11]
    I think it likely that he will soon receive this treatment. Prison Mental Health Services (PMHS) have agreed that he be seen by a visiting medical officer and he is currently listed for a review by a psychiatrist on a date to be fixed.^[3] He was seen by a psychologist on 11 September 2015 who reported as follows

“Prisoner Bloomfield was seen this afternoon in D2 at the request of the High Risk Offender Management Unit.  He was polite and cooperative to interview and presented with a neat and tidy appearance.  He was assessed to be euthymic, calm and stable with appropriate affect.  He reported he was in contact with a court ordered external psychologist up until recently due to ‘violent thoughts towards others’.  He denied having any knowledge of PMHS requesting to see him and stated unit officers had advised it was for ‘the doctors’ and because he had not put a request in to see the doctors he didn’t see the need to go.  He disclosed that he does not want to commence medication but will see PMHS if they request to see him again.  He was advised to contact psychological services if required.  He denied any concerns regarding his mental health and denied any current or recent S/DSH ideation, plan or intent and nil acute risk factors identified.  He identified strong external support from family maintained by daily phone calls.  Nil follow up required.”^[4]

12. [12]
    Once the proposed anti-depressant is explained to him and he appreciates that it may help I think it is likely he will agree to it.

13. [13]
    Corrective Services advise that should he refuse to attend the psychiatrist he will be given a further final appointment date and time. Should he then not attend, PMHS would discuss his case and may decide to close it.^[5]He should attend.

14. [14]
    Dr Kovacevic examined him on 9 March 2015. His report is exhibit 3:

“He remembered rummaging through the content of the complainants bags looking for cannabis when he discovered a pair of scissors that was presumably used to cut cannabis leaves.  Mr Bloomfield denied that he had a gun or that he intended to commit a robbery.  He recalled grabbing the scissors and from that point on something in his head went ‘blank’.  He could not say what triggered the complete change in his attitude or precipitated his subsequent behaviour.  He could not recall having any thoughts or emotions at the time.  He recalled trying to cut one of the complainant’s tongue and remembered that the complainant was yelling.  He said he slapped him over the face and then went for his ear.

Police discovered his mobile phone with several photos of the complainant with the severed ear lobe, taken at the scene of the crime.  He could not explain why he had taken those photos or why he had kept them.

Mr Bloomfield had indeed at one point contemplated eating the piece of the severed ear lobe.  At least, he said, such thoughts went through his head. He said he had never done anything similar before, for example tasted human flesh, or tortured a human being or an animal.  He had no idea what came over him and contemplated that he must have acted out of control.  Having said that, Mr Bloomfield regarded himself as being capable of controlling his impulses in prison, which he exemplified by the fact that he had no incidents with sharp objects whilst working at the textile shop.  He appreciated the concerns that his behaviour could escalate again in the future and that he might reoffend in a similar manner.  At the same time, he emphasized that the prison was offering him no rehabilitation or any counseling interventions that could have ameliorated those risks.  If anything, he believed that staying in prison and not receiving any psychological treatment could only make him more disgruntled and potentially violent.  He acknowledged that he had a problem and reiterated that he was ready to accept any professional help offered.  In fact, he said he was actively seeking assistance, however ‘nothing happens in prison’.

When asked whether he had been experiencing any violent thoughts whilst in prison, Mr Bloomfield admitted that he had such thoughts on many occasions, however he has always been able to resist the urge to act on them, which he understood would have jeopardized his opportunities for earlier release.  Such violent thoughts have occurred in both types of prison environment, the textile workshop and his prison unit.  When asked whether anything triggered such thoughts, he mentioned other people saying or doing things that he would disagree with.  This could mean having simply too many negative interactions with others, or having someone just stare at him for no reason.  Even someone looking at him fairly innocently could initiate such violent ideations that, according to him, in most cases did not last much longer than one or two minutes.  When asked about the frequency of this occurring, Mr Bloomfield admitted that it could happen on most days and even on several occasions during one day.  He said he struggled to make sense of it and at times felt as if he was not in control of his own thoughts.

When asked about the origin of his violent thoughts and fantasies, Mr Bloomfield reported that they began at the age of 13 and in the context of bullying he had been subjected to in school.  He initially fantasized about bashing people up, however over the following three to four years the nature of his ideations changed into imagining cutting people up, dismembering them and pulling out their internal organs.  In his imagination, his victims were always men.  They were usually older and unfamiliar to him.

He stopped drinking after he was arrested for armed robberies.  He has never resumed drinking, as he stopped feeling the urge to drink alcohol.

When asked about his future, Mr Bloomfield explained that his extensive physical training has been an attempt to keep the violent thoughts at bay, as he was coming to terms with the realization that he was unable to control them entirely.  The strategies he has been using also included keeping away from others and walking away from any conflict-type situations.  In order to achieve his goals, he said he was keeping a diary of his activities in prison.  He said he was open to the idea of engaging in psychological treatment with the view of modifying his thoughts and developing some useful strategies and personal goals.

MENTAL STATE ASSESSMENT

There was nothing suggestive of the existence of any major psychiatric disorder in Mr Bloomfield’s case.  His mood was stable and he exhibited no perceptual abnormalities.  There was no evidence of delusions, obsessions or overvalued ideas.  He did not exhibit any suicidal tendencies and his cognitive status was generally intact.  

Mr Bloomfield appeared to be an individual of average intelligence and both his insight and general judgment seemed fair.

OPINION

I have considered Dr Aboud’s opinion and recommendations and in all significant aspects I have concurred with his views.  However, in order to assist the sentencing court, I will expand further on some of the diagnostic and risk assessment issues.

Mr Bloomfield’s conduct during the commission of his offences raises the issue of some serious underlying personality pathology that may have been responsible for what was essentially a sadistic act.  What immediately comes to mind is what was once considered to be a Sadistic Personality Disorder.  For the purposes of attempting to understand and conceptualize Mr Bloomfield’s criminal behaviour, sadistic tendencies should still be taken into consideration as a valid concept.

The traits of sadism are often found in patients who display a much more accepted and better-validated mental and behavioural disorder called psychopathy.

Even if the diagnosis of Sadistic Personality Disorder existed, diagnosing Mr Bloomfield with such condition would not be at all straightforward.  Similarly, based on a single interview, it would not be appropriate to put forward a label of a psychopathic personality.  Although during the commission of his alleged offending Mr Bloomfield clearly exhibited sadistic type behaviour, it cannot be conclusively established that this is a long-term pattern of aberrant conduct.

When looking at the typical description of psychopathic personality, it is hard to escape the impression that Mr Bloomfield’s background history and face-to-face examination do not offer sufficient evidence to support such a diagnostic classification.  There are a number of features of psychopathy, or perhaps even the large majority, that Mr Bloomfield does not appear to possess.

There is no evidence of early serious behavioural problems, or a life-long pattern of poor behavioural controls.

The onset of violent fantasies coincides with the period during which Mr Bloomfield experienced sustained bullying and victimization in school.  It is likely that his initial anger and revenge fantasies over time became more elaborated into distinct sadistic fantasies that may have served the purpose of affect regulation and a psychological defense mechanism.  The fact that the fantasies generated a sense of enjoyment and satisfaction served as a psychological reinforcing mechanism that over time became distinctly maladaptive.

Mr Bloomfield’s account is reminiscent of some dark internal forces that overwhelmed his usual restraints, which may have prevented him from acting on his violent thoughts and fantasies in the past.  The most plausible objective explanation at this stage would have to centre on his negative developmental experiences of bullying when he was in primary school. It is possible that seeing two teenagers that smelled of cannabis may have by some unknown or perhaps unconscious mechanism triggered memories of past victimization and an urge to exact a symbolic revenge against his past tormentors, however any such formulation is inevitably speculative in nature.  In order for the motivational factors behind his offending to be understood, Mr Bloomfield is likely to require longer-term psychological therapy that would explore his underlying psychological dynamics.

Needless to say, Mr Bloomfield is probably likely to remain at least a moderate risk of violence to others in the future.  This is primarily based on his criminal history and the fact that he continues to have violent fantasies, notwithstanding the fact that he has not acted on them in recent times, or more specifically since he has been incarcerated.  I would not immediately regard his risk as high, because his objective ratings on most commonly used risk violence instruments (i.e. HCR-20, PCL-R-Psychopathy Checklist Revised etc) would be unlikely to reach that level.  There are also some relevant protective factors, which serve to ameliorate the risk factors to some degree.  I am particularly referring to Mr Bloomfield’s preparedness to engage in psychological treatment and his recognition that he has a problem, which if unaddressed, could give rise to future serious violent behaviour.  Mr Bloomfield does not seem to wish to end up committing further similar crimes and is probably sufficiently intelligent and psychologically minded to be able to benefit from psychotherapy.  

In addition to exploratory psychotherapy that would aim at discovering the roots of Mr Bloomfield’s psychological problems, I would also strongly recommend cognitive behavioural interventions to assist him to develop methods of controlling his violent fantasies through cognitive restructuring, empathy building and thought control.  Those interventions in addition to the already recommended antidepressant treatment and the rehabilitation for poly-substance abuse, in my opinion hold promise of reducing his risk of re-offending.  It would be helpful if such treatments could be commenced whilst Mr Bloomfield is still in custody, otherwise Mr Bloomfield’s predictions that serving a long custodial sentence without any treatment could make his condition even worse, might well prove to be close to accurate.”

15. [15]
    Summarised, Dr Aboud considers the defendant represents a significant risk to others which will most likely remain the case without highly specialised psychological treatment which he needs whilst in custody and which would need to be specifically commissioned by Corrective Services. Ongoing risk assessment is required. At a minimum he should now be prescribed a relatively high dose anti-depressant.

16. [16]
    Dr Kovacevic considers he requires longer-term psychological therapy including cognitive behavioural interventions commencing now and anti-depressant treatment. He represents at least a moderate risk of violence to others in the future, not presently a high risk. He recognises that he has a problem and if not addressed, could give rise to future serious violent behaviour.

17. [17]
    He was examined by Dr Lars Madsen, a forensic and clinical psychologist on 7 September 2015. His report is exhibit 24. He says

18. [18]
    Summarised, the risk of future violence may be high but is more likely to be moderate to high in specific circumstances. He would benefit from group based and one to one psychological therapy.

19. [19]
    In relation to the recommendations by Dr Madsen, Corrective Services advise as follows in its most recent Pre-Sentence Report^[6]

“Cognitive Self Change Program (CSCP)

The CSCP is a high intensity cognitive-behavioural intervention that aims to reduce violent reconviction in high-risk adult offenders whose repetitive use of violence is part of a general pattern of antisocial behaviour and criminality.

The program aims to reduce violent recidivism by changing offenders’ distorted thinking processes and individual patterns of antisocial thinking which lead them to violence and criminal conduct, and by reducing the impact of contributory violence risk factors specific to each individual.

The CSCP length varies on the individual’s treatment needs and level of engagement and varies between 25 and 30 weeks.  This equates to between 135 and 165 hours of treatment which consists of three sessions per week. 

This program is currently only delivered at the Woodford Correctional Centre.  If there is sufficient demand for a CSCP at Wolston Correctional Centre or Maryborough Correctional Centre, it may be delivered there in the future. 

The CSCP is not offered by QCS in the community.

Timeline for intervention

Offenders require 12 months or more in custody to complete CSCP.  The CSCP is offered to offenders approximately 2 years from their parole eligibility date.  Programs are offered towards an offender’s custodial end date to provide current best practice principles associated with the delivery of services. 

Participation in programs approaching an offender’s release date also allows for offenders to be linked into current support services in their local communities so their post-release needs can be identified and appropriately targeted. 

Individual Treatment

The provision of psychological and counselling services are considered for offender’s [sic] exhibiting complex behaviour in custody, primarily around harm to self and the safety and security of the centre.  Individual services can also be considered to assist with an offender’s transition from custody to the community if resources are available.

QCS have limited financial resources to provide the long term intervention as noted by Dr Madsen (p.23).  Individual treatment has been used for the purpose of motivational interviewing or assisting the offender with obstacles to completing group treatment for example, anxiety, depression, shame.  Treatment may also be provided for a short period to support offenders through a group treatment program.”

20. [20]
    The CSCP is for offenders with “distorted thinking processes and individual patterns of anti-social thinking which lead them to violence and criminal conduct”. Unfortunately it is unlikely to be provided to the defendant, notwithstanding that it is needed now, until approximately 2 years from his parole eligibility date which makes a current prediction of likely future behaviour even more difficult. In addition it is clearly not the intensive individual treatment recommended by Drs Aboud, Kovacevic and Madsen which is what the defendant now requires.

21. [21]
    Prison records in relation to the defendant’s incarceration from 8 February 2013 to 9 May 2015 are unremarkable and provide no support for the application.^[7]

22. [22]
    Section 163(3)-(5), 169 and 170 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 provide

23. [23]
    Both sides accept, and I am satisfied, that chap 7, part 6 of the Mental Health does not apply to the defendant.

24. [24]
    In determining whether the defendant is a serious danger to the community, the following are relevant considerations

• the risk or danger to the community if a determinate sentence were imposed; whether the defendant will constitute a serious danger to the community even under a finite sentence
• the danger to the community at the present time and in the future; the need to protect society from serious harm
• the exceptional nature of such a sentence and its departure from the fundamental principles of proportionality; such a sentence is not a default option to a finite sentence
• the risk of serious danger to the community to be weighed is the risk if an indefinite sentence were not imposed
• the uncertainty that is necessarily involved in estimating the danger to the community in the future if the defendant is incarcerated for a long time; associated with this is the protective potential of the ordinary sentencing regime, the operation of the parole system and the possibility of treatment while in prison; whether the protective elements could be met by the normal process of parole
• the need to “make a prediction about future behaviour” based on current evidence^[8]

25. [25]
    Mr Whitbread for the Crown submits that the defendant has not received any treatment in nearly 3 years in prison awaiting sentence meaning that essentially he “remains in the same concerning condition and serious danger to the community as he was when he committed the offences”^[9]He also submitted that the defendant’s psychiatric condition predisposes him to re-offending.  That may be so but it may not necessarily follow if he receives the recommended treatment. 

26. [26]
    Mr Harrison for the defendant concedes he is “a risk to society”, “a future risk to society” but submitted he had only manifested his fantasies on one occasion and recognised that his enjoyment of what he did “was an abnormal reaction to such behaviour”. He was also aware, according to Dr Aboud, that “he has a serious problem and is actively requesting assistance”.^[10]He further submitted that he is young, has insight, wants help and is acutely aware that without help he will be institutionalised.^[11]He has pleaded guilty, the injury inflicted, whilst concerning and serious, was not life threatening and was never intended to be such; it was spur of the moment but on the other hand gratuitously disturbing.^[12]

27. [27]
    In his supplementary submissions Mr Harrison conceded that the nature of the offence is exceptional, that in his current untreated state the risk to the community is high and that without treatment he remains at high risk. He submits though, correctly in my view, that the three health professionals lean toward the likelihood that he will benefit from the recommended intensive treatment which may very well reduce his risk of causing serious harm to members of the community; he recognises that he requires the treatment and is motivated to have it.

28. [28]
    Two of the three health professionals^[13] assess a moderate or moderate to high risk of serious harm to members of the community in the future and the other, Dr Aboud, a significant risk.  All agree he needs treatment commencing now.  He will, according to Dr Aboud, remain a significant risk unless he is provided with relatively high dose anti-depressants followed by highly specialised psychological treatment.  Dr Kovacevic agrees with anti-depressant medication and psychological therapy.  Dr Madsen recommends group based (CSCP) and one to one psychological therapy.

29. [29]
    The specialised individual psychiatric and psychological treatment referred to by the doctors is not routinely available in prison and is likely to require special approval which I consider should be given. Participation in the CSCP should start now and not about 2 years before parole eligibility with top up participation in the period before release on parole. In any event he requires ongoing professional risk assessment which should accompany ongoing specialised treatment.

30. [30]
    It is tempting in these matters to adopt an approach akin to the precautionary principle which is often applied in the consideration of perceived environmental impacts but the legislation requires more than that; it requires cogent evidence to a high degree of probability that an offender is a serious danger to the community.

31. [31]
    In my view the evidence here does not go far enough. I am not satisfied that the defendant will pose a serious danger to the community under a finite sentence provided he receives the recommended treatment. Without that treatment the opinions of risk vary from moderate to high but I am confident that the suggested treatment will be provided and I recommend to Corrective Services that it be provided commencing now. One can only hope that Corrective Services has an equal interest in minimising the risk of serious recidivism. The result may have been different if the defendant had already undergone the recommended treatment and it was not successful.

32. [32]
    In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to the defendant’s young age, his background, his limited criminal history and the severity of the offence. The defence concedes the offence is exceptional but that is only one of the relevant considerations.

33. [33]
    For these reasons the application by the Crown is dismissed. I will impose a finite sentence on the defendant.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE C.F. WALL QC

Indictment No 513 of 2013

THE QUEEN

v.

CARL WILLIAM SEDGWICK BLOOMFIELD

SOUTHPORT 

10.09 AM, MONDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2015

SENTENCE

Any Rulings that may be included in this transcript, may be extracted and subject to revision by the Presiding Judge.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the Crown, under section 163 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, for an indefinite sentence to be imposed on the defendant. The application will be dismissed. I publish my reasons. I’ll now proceed to impose a finite sentence on the defendant. You don’t want to add anything further, Mr Whitbread?

MR WHITBREAD: No. Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr ‑‑‑

MR HARRISON: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑ Harrison? Carl Bloomfield, these are serious offences that you have pleaded guilty to. They consist of two counts of deprivation of liberty, three counts of robbery, three counts of common assault and, more seriously, one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Trent Miteff-Lozell with intent to disfigure. I take into account your plea of guilty. You were on parole at the time you committed these offences. I also have regard to your age at the time, 18, and your age now, 21. You acted alone. I propose to deal firstly with the offence in count 9, which is the most serious offence: that is, unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure.

Serious injury was caused to the complainant, with lifetime consequences for him. It must have been a frightening experience for both complainants. In fact, Dr Madsen, in paragraph 10.5 of his report, suggested that the psychological harm caused to the complainant in count 9 is likely to be significant and long-lasting. No doubt he would say something similar in relation to the other complainant.

I’ve been provided with three victim impact statements. They are from the complainant in the offence in count 9, his mother and his uncle. He is from New Zealand and was living here at the time and intending to remain living here. He describes what you did as the most extreme and terrifying time of his life. He was studying at trade school. After you had cut off part of his ear, he didn’t want teachers and friends to know what had happened to him, but everyone found out because of his missing ear, which is obvious and which made him feel embarrassed and different to all of his peers. He couldn’t study or focus properly, because he was so extremely fearful and paranoid that people may have been looking for him to hurt him.

He completely lost his self-esteem and confidence. He was not mentally well to cope with his life any more. So he quit trade school and received counselling, where he was psychologically diagnosed and received medication and was then accommodated in the mental health ward in Robina. During his time there, he lost 15 kilograms in weight, caused by anxiety. His family and he decided that it would be best if he relocated to New Zealand, where his grandparents and uncle could help him recover from his trauma and provide a safe and secure environment for him. He wanted to be as far away from you as possible. He didn’t want to leave the life he had so much loved in Australia but knew he had to move to get better emotionally and mentally.

Since leaving Australia and moving back to New Zealand, he feels he has lost so much of his life. He misses his mother, who remained here, and elder brother. He misses all of his friends. Had it not been for your attack on him, he could’ve been living the life he once dreamed about before that attack. He feels like you have robbed him of his life. He still sometimes feels scared and paranoid for his safety. He feels angry and upset that his plans and goals in Australia were taken away from him. He is constantly reminded by the events that took place every time he looks in the mirror and sees his missing ear. He can still remember so clearly the words you used, namely:

I love the taste of humans, and I love the smell of blood.

He is still reminded about you when someone asks him why his ear is missing.

Because of what you did, his life has changed dramatically in every way. Basically, everything that he once knew has been taken away from him. His mother says that, at the time of the attack, he was doing work experience to gain an apprenticeship as a builder and carpenter. From the night of the attack, their lives changed. Her son was so traumatised by the attack he would sob in his sleep and wake having horrific nightmares. Over time, he became very withdrawn and depressed and stopped doing all the things he loved to do.

She had to withdraw him from school, because he was too scared to leave the house. After a few months, he returned to school to complete grade 12, but he became very self-conscious and lost his self-esteem from only having, effectively, one ear. Things didn’t get better for him. He became suicidal and was an angry, helpless young boy crying out for help. He was admitted to the Child Youth Mental Health Hospital, at which time, he had hit rock bottom. He lost, she says, weight and suffered from lack of sleep, anxiety, depression and received treatment and medication from a psychiatrist.

After he was released from hospital, she sent him to her brother in New Zealand, his uncle. She says the crime has had a huge impact emotionally and financially on herself, as she had to receive counselling and leave her work to care for her son and relocate to New Zealand. Since she has returned to Australia, she has suffered financial hardship. This is now ongoing. Her son is separated from her and from his older brother. He is still too afraid to return to Australia to be with him. You are solely responsible for that state of affairs.

His uncle, who is looking after him in New Zealand says this:

Trent initially relocated from New Zealand to Australia at the age of 10 with his mother and older brother. He has spent a very big part of his youth in Australia

He and his family agreed that it would be best if he relocated to New Zealand to live with him for a while, where his family could offer counselling, love and support that he desperately needed. Since then, he has noticed a change of characteristics that the complainant previously displayed before the offence. He didn’t any longer have the same joyful demeanour he always had. He was fearful to talk on the phone with a family member. In general, he acted very differently, quiet and introverted. He looked as though he was constantly depressed and didn’t have a positive outlook towards many things.

He slowly recovered to some degree from his trauma, but his uncle doesn’t believe he will every fully recover from the life he once had and could have had, due to the damage he suffered physically and emotionally. He believes this incident has scarred his nephew physically and emotionally and has changed the direction of his goals and dreams to a lesser standard. The complainant has told him that he no longer wishes to return to Australia, purely because of what you did to him. What you did has proved, according to his uncle, to be very damaging to his future and has caused a great loss for him and all of his loved ones that live in Australia and New Zealand. Those consequences are going to be with the complainant and his family probably for a very, very long time, if not forever.

In the judgment in relation to the application for an indefinite sentence, I have referred to the psychiatric and psychological evidence in relation to you, and I need not repeat those matters here. Suffice it to say they are relevant to sentencing. Limited resources should not be an excuse for the treatment which you require. The treatment which is recommended should be provided to you.

You require more than just treatment for the purposes of only assisting and supporting you through a group treatment program, including the CSCP. You require the specialised individual treatment referred to by Doctors Aboud, Kovacevic and Madsen. Participation in group therapy such as the CSCP alone is unlikely to cure you, and Corrective Services should appreciate that. More than lip service only to treatment likely to have a rehabilitative effect is required if the risk of recidivism is to be avoided.

Your counsel concedes that a serious violent offence declaration could be made but submits that, in the alternative, I should make a recommendation for parole eligibility after you have served 50 per cent of the sentence I will shortly impose on you, because it is submitted you could then, earlier than would otherwise be the case, undergo the CSC program.

In my view, the seriousness of the offence, the defence concession, correctly in my view, that the offence is exceptional, and the likelihood of you receiving the treatment recommended by the three doctors at an early stage more support a sentence with a serious violence offence declaration rather than the one contended for by your counsel. The offence is serious, but less serious than Scheers’ but, as I said, is conceded to be exceptional and the circumstances of the offence are serious, violent, and extreme. In my view, a serious violent offender declaration should be made.

The offence is particularly violent and has left the complainant with lifetime physical consequences. This is a very serious instance of this type of offence. It is out of the norm in the sense that it was completely gratuitous and committed to satisfy some type of sadistic fantasy on your part. Your motivation was to cause fear and distress in others, in particular, the complainant. It was committed in a savage and sadistic way for no reason at all. The complainant had done you no harm at all. The community needs to be protected from you and that may be achieved by treatment commencing soon.

In my view, the community would be vindicated by a serious violent offence declaration. I have also had regard to the general need for punishment and to rehabilitation and deterrence. I also have regard to the concession made by your counsel that such a declaration could be made in your case.

Other relevant considerations are that you said you enjoyed what you did, you gained pleasure from it, and you considered eating the severed piece of ear. You have limited insight into what brought about the offence. You fantasised about cutting someone up. You only stopped because you thought the scissors were too blunt to continue. The offence was unplanned and spontaneous without any reason and you acted out your sadistic fantasies and thought processes. You couldn’t recall having any thoughts or emotions at the time and you had no idea what came over you. Your behaviour was calm, controlled and deliberate. You were not adversely affected by drugs or alcohol at the time you cruelly inflicted injuries to the complainant.

In considering whether to make a serious violent offence declaration, I have also considered the consequences which flow from doing so. I also have regard to the fact that you have also served the sentences imposed on the 25^th of July 2013, because of your offending whilst on parole. I take into account pre-sentence custody of 287 days between the 24^th of February 2015 and the 7^th of December 2016 and I declare that period of 287 days to be time already served under the sentences I will impose.

For each offence, a conviction will be recorded and for each of the offences in counts 1 and 2, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for three years. For each of the offences in counts 3, 4 and 5, imprisonment for four years. For the offence in count 6, imprisonment for two years. For the offence in count 7, imprisonment for 18 months. For the offence in count 8, imprisonment for two years, six months and for the offence in count 9, imprisonment for nine years and, in respect of that offence, I declare that you have been convicted of a serious violent offence. You will be required to serve 80 per cent of the sentence.

I recommend to the Department of Corrective Services that you receive the anti-depressant medication and the psychiatric and psychological treatment recommended by Drs Aboud, Kovacevic and Madsen, as soon as possible and that you undergo ongoing risk assessment and further psychiatric and psychological treatment before any decision is made as to your release on parole. Any release on parole should be conditioned as recommended by Dr Aboud. I direct the registrar of the District Court at Southport to provide a copy of my decision in relation to the application for an indefinite sentence and a copy of the schedule of facts, exhibit 4 to the Department of Corrective Services.

So the effective sentence, Mr Bloomfield, is imprisonment for nine years with a serious violent offence declaration which requires you to serve 80 per cent of that sentence. I’ve also made a declaration in relation to pre-sentence custody. Does that cover everything, Mr Whitbread?

MR WHITBREAD: Yes, it does, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Harrison?

MR HARRISON: Yes, it does, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. I will just adjourn to chambers.

______________________