The fate of a 43-year-old man with no fixed address who let himself into the home of a 72-year-old woman last July and crawled into bed with her now rests with the Mental Health Review Board.
Chief provincial court Judge John Douglas ruled Monday in Charlottetown that Stephen Malcolm MacPhee was not criminally responsible for his actions at the time the July incident occurred.
Douglas made his ruling after considering the content of an assessment prepared for the court and the representations of the Crown and defence counsel.
The court was told that while MacPhee was fit to stand trial, he does have an identifiable mental disorder. MacPhee has experienced auditory hallucinations and multiple delusions, including delusions of reference. MacPhee is believed to have had delusions about the victim.
Douglas ordered MacPhee be returned to hospital until such time as the Mental Health Review Board can meet to review his case.
While MacPhee was not convicted of the offences with which he was charged, the court still had the authority to order him to provide a sample of his DNA for the national DNA databank and did so.
The charges against MacPhee were laid following a bizarre series of events that began in June when he did some painting for the victim. The victim also did some painting at the same time on the lower level of the house.
She told police when she was out there with MacPhee, he looked at her in an inappropriate manner. At one point, he asked her to go out with him.
According to the police report, the victim essentially told MacPhee he was being foolish, that she had children older than him.
On the night the offence occurred, MacPhee went around to the back of the victim’s residence, took his boots off and let himself into the house. After locating the victim’s bedroom, he entered the room and crawled into bed beside her.
The victim woke up when she felt his arm around her and his body close to hers. She told him to get out or she’d call the police.
MacPhee left the residence but asked the victim if she needed any more painting done.
Nearly two weeks later, MacPhee returned to the victim’s residence and again asked her if she needed any painting done.
And I am sure you'd be the first to growl if they didn't put all that information in there (nothing in the writeup hurts his dignity but rather explains his situation so that we can understand why the ruling was made). Otherwise you'd be up in arms wondering why this man wasn't put in jail. The people have a right to know what happened to the accused in a situation like this. My safety easily trumps any information disclosed in the article.