Psychiatrists clash at murder trial

Crown, defence witnesses disagree on whether senior accused of nursing-home killing knew actions were morally wrong

Asenior on trial for beating a nursing home resident to death with his cane would have understood his actions were morally wrong even with dementia, a forensic psychiatrist testified Monday.

Peter Brooks, 76, is on trial for the first-degree murder of 72-year-old Joycelyn Dickson and the attempted murder of 91-year-old Lourdes Missier on March 13, 2013.

His lawyers argue he should be found not criminally responsible due to a combination of dementia and the delusion that Dickson, Missier and a third woman at the Wexford long-term care home in Scarborough were conspiring with management to get him kicked out.

The forensic psychiatrists called by the defence and the Crown disagree over whether Brooks understood his actions were morally wrong — likely the key question for the jury.

Dr. Julian Gojer, the forensic psychiatrist called by the defence, testified last week that Brooks may have known his actions were legally wrong because, for example, Brooks did not reveal his intentions to nursing home staff.

However, Gojer said, Brooks did not know his actions were morally wrong because of his delusion, coupled with the dementia making him disinhibited and impulsive.

On Monday, the Crown’s forensic psychiatrist Dr. Philip Klassen testified Brooks does appear to understand his actions were morally wrong, pointing to Brooks admitting what he did would have been wrong if he hadn’t been in a trance induced by incense. (A nurse has testified that there was no incense burning in the nursing home that night.)

Brooks appeared to be faking psychotic symptoms when he testified he had a drug or incense-related dream in which a spirit told him to beat up the women, Klassen said. When Brooks was making his way from floor to floor attacking Dickson and Missier, he did not appear to be acting in an emotional or frenzied state that would have drowned out the capacity for rational decisionmaking, Klassen testified.

During cross-examination, defence lawyer Charn Gill suggested the explanation about the dream and incense is Brooks’ way of trying to make sense of his situation through his dementia and that it is irrelevant to assessing whether or not Brooks acted on the basis of a delusion.

He argued the feelings of justification and satisfaction Brooks has expressed for attacking the women shows he can’t meaningfully distinguish between right and wrong.

Klassen responded that many people who commit serious offences do operate by their own moral code and feel their actions are justified.

Klassen admitted it is possible Brooks suffered from a delusion that the three women and the Wexford management were conspiring against him, but said it could also be a suspicion or belief that doesn’t rise to the level of a delusion.

The Crown has argued Brooks’ belief isn’t a delusion at all, but reality — it had been suggested by Wexford’s executive director that Brooks move to the independent living side of the home after a series of aggressive incidents and altercations between Brooks and the three women.

Gill criticized Klassen’s examination of Brooks, noting he only met with him for 1.75 hours and suggesting he left out critical evidence from his report. He also dismissed Klassen’s opinion that Brooks was faking his memory loss on the night of March 13, 2013, based on his contradictory testimony in court.

He suggested Klassen’s assessment, which was based on transcripts rather than the videos of Brooks testifying in court, couldn’t capture the hesitation and confusion in Brooks’ testimony.

The trial continues.