Husband had substance induced psychotic episode when he slit wife’s throat, court told | BreakingNews.ie

A murder accused husband had a substance induced psychotic episode when he slit his wife’s throat and choked her with his “bare hands” at their rural Co Mayo home, a psychiatrist has told his trial.

Dr Ronan Mullaney, testifying on behalf of the defence today at the Central Criminal Court, told the jury that James Kilroy was suffering from a mental disorder at the time.

The expert witness said the mental disorder was such that the accused ought not to be held responsible for the act because he did not know what he was doing was wrong and was unable to refrain from committing the act.

Mr Kilroy (50), has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to murdering occupational therapist Valerie French Kilroy (41) at their rural home at Kilbree Lower, Westport, Co Mayo, between June 13th, 2019 and June 14th, 2019.

The trial has heard that the accused had a long history of cannabis use and was regularly consuming the drug therapeutically in the three years leading up to her death.

Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Ronan Mullaney from the Central Mental Hospital, who was called by the defence, continued to give his evidence for a second day.

He told Patrick Gageby SC, defending, that he had evaluated the evidence available to him and found that the accused was mentally disordered on the balance of probabilities.

Dr Mullaney said there was extensive evidence Mr Kilroy was suffering from an acute psychotic disorder at the time of his wife’s death including that from June 5th, 2019 the accused believed he was under surveillance and the potential victim of a number of conspiracies against him.

The psychiatrist said the accused believed his computer and phones had been hacked by benign agents, that he was being followed by cars and motorbikes and had displayed increasingly erratic and paranoid behaviour in his home prior to the offence.

The psychiatrist said Mr Kilroy was diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist on June 15th – the day after the incident – as suffering from an acute psychotic episode and was in need of treatment.

He said the accused’s delusional beliefs continued after his arrest in that he believed his wife was an agent who was going to harm him.

Dr Mullaney said the accused told him he had last consumed cannabis on June 7th, seven days before the alleged offence, and a negative toxicology report for the drug was conducted on June 16th.

The witness said he was satisfied that the accused was suffering from a psychotic illness in the weeks leading up to and for up to a week after the alleged homicide.

He said it was a schizophrenic form of psychosis including auditory hallucinations and bizarre paranoid delusions.

The witness said the accused’s acute psychosis gradually lessened over the period of several weeks after he went into custody.

He said no sustained treatment of antipsychotic medication was needed to treat the accused, which in his opinion supported the specific diagnosis of substance induced psychosis.

Evidence

Dr Mullaney said he found evidence that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time as defined in the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.

He said while there was evidence that the accused was consuming cannabis in the weeks and months prior to the offence, Mr Kilroy said he had not consumed the drug in the week prior to his wife’s death.

The witness explained to the jury that insanity is not a medical term but a legal definition and under some circumstances it can excuse defendants from their criminal behaviour while intoxication cannot.

He said an abnormal mental state due to acute intoxication is not a mitigating offence to criminal charges. However, he said a more extended psychotic mental state lasting weeks or months which was caused by voluntary intoxication might be considered a defence.

He said if Mr Kilroy had taken illicit drugs, even if he was not intoxicated at the time, but the drug use had occurred days or weeks prior to the offence and had caused acute psychosis, then the accused could be considered partly responsible and the defence of diminished responsibility may be made out.

The witness said Mr Kilroy was mentally disordered and that he was suffering from acute psychosis at the time of his wife’s death.

The effect of the mental disorder led to a state of impairment in the accused’s functioning in various domains such as depriving him of regulating his emotions and being unable to form a balanced appraisal of his situation.

On the balance of probabilities, he said, it was likely the accused was experiencing abnormal perceptions and did not recognise these experiences as hallucinations or abnormal experiences.

The witness agreed with Mr Gageby that he had opined in his report that, should the jury find a mental disorder was at play at the time of the killing but not to justify a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, then they should consider whether the accused was guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility.

He said the accused met the criteria for a mental disorder at the time of the offence and met the second and third limbs of the insanity test.

The jury have already been told that an accused would meet the criteria for a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity if they either did not know what they were doing, or did not know what they were doing was wrong, or were unable to refrain from committing the act.

The witness said it was debatable whether the accused knew the nature of his act at the time but that he didn’t understand it was wrong and had lacked the capacity to rationally and calmly decide the options available to him even if held that delusional belief.

He said at the time of his wife’s death the accused believed his wife or someone impersonating her was becoming a zombie.

Referring to literature, Dr Mullaney said cannabis induced psychotic disorder may develop shortly after a high dose of cannabis has been consumed and substance induced psychosis states are not usually deemed to last longer than one month.

Toxicology screening

The witness agreed with counsel that a toxicology screening was taken from the accused when he was admitted to Castlerea Prison on June 16th, where he provided a urine sample to check for common drugs of abuse. It tested negative for amphetamines, cocaine, methadone and alcohol.

The psychiatrist said he did not agree with consultant forensic psychiatrist Professor Harry Kennedy, who will give evidence for the State, that the accused did not have a mental disorder at the time and instead was suffering with delirium from a withdrawal from cannabis.

In summary, Dr Mullaney said in his opinion the acute psychotic episode was not the result of acute intoxication but was a substance induced psychotic episode relating to cannabis use in a vulnerable person.

In cross-examination Dean Kelly SC, for the State, told Dr Mullaney that he took issue with his conclusions from the case and was contesting his view to some degree.

The witness agreed with counsel that people who have substance abuse problems commonly underplay and downplay them.

He also agreed that people in Mr Kilroy’s position, who have violently killed their wives, have an incentive to offer a narrative of those events which is self-serving and that psychiatrists have to be “alive” to that.

The witness further agreed with counsel that there was a level of disagreement in the case but what they did agree upon was that Mr Kilroy had had a very serious substance abuse problem for 20 years, which went back to his days at university.

Asked whether the accused was a reasonable narrator in terms of his drug use, Dr Mullaney said he seemed to be quite consistent with most of the people he had interactions with.

Mr Kelly put it to the witness that the accused had attempted to minimise his drug use saying: “It is a motif of Mr Kilroy that he would always and without fail characterise his use of cannabis as being therapeutic rather than social or compulsive”. The psychiatrist agreed with this.

Counsel commented that Mr Kilroy had used ‘AK-47’ cannabis [a cannabis strain with high THC content] as an ingredient when baking cannabis cookies, which he said the accused acknowledged was a “particularly potent version of cannabis”. “I suggest that is at odds with your benign conclusion that he is attempting to manage the THC side of the house,” said Mr Kelly.

The barrister put it to the witness that he was giving the accused “a bounce of the ball’ by saying he was someone who was seeking to minimise the toxicity of THC.

Dr Mullaney said the accused was aware of the high potency of THC and had gone to unusual lengths to dilute it with CBT so he was not exposed to the high doses of THC.

Dr Mullaney agreed with counsel that the accused knew in 2001 he had a significant problem with drugs, when he was told by a doctor that he needed to abstain or “desist” from drugs in the future. Clearly, Mr Kelly said, the accused had not obeyed the advice given to him.

Mr Kelly commented that Mr Kilroy was an unreliable narrator who minimised his drug use and had done that from a self-serving perspective and that picture came very much into focus in 2019. “The relevant point is his state of mind at the material time,” replied the witness.

The trial continues on Thursday in front of Mr Justice Paul McDermott and a jury of seven women and five men.