Six mental health experts are giving evidence in the trial. All but one have rebutted the defence of insanity.
Dr Jeremy Skipworth today told the court the defendant has antisocial personality disorder.
He suggested some of the symptoms the defendant displayed during interviews were more likely to be because of his personality, rather than his illness.
Skipworth was being cross-examined by the defence before the lunch break when the defendant had an outburst in the dock.
After the break, Justice Peter Churchman told the jury the defendant was “no longer in the dock”.
“It’s not something that you need to read anything into one way or another. These things occasionally happen,” he said.
Defence lawyer Steve Gill spoke about the “unpredictable nature” of the man’s illness, referring to the outburst.
“It’s actually a very similar outburst that I experienced at the end of my second interview with him,” Skipworth replied.
He said it was “not atypical” for the defendant to have such outbursts when he was in a “reasonably settled state” and they were not indicative of “serious unwellness”.
“I guess it’s the intensity of the outburst,” Gill said. “Did that not surprise you, what we saw today?”
But Skipworth maintained it was not unusual behaviour for the defendant.
Skipworth said the only evidence the defendant was insane at the time of the alleged offending came from the man’s self-account, and the rest of the objective evidence did not suggest serious unwellness.
“You’re aware, aren’t you, that once the interview was over he became quite combative with police and changed his demeanour quite dramatically?” Gill asked.
He questioned whether outbursts and combativeness were symptoms of the man’s illness.
“I think it’s more likely to be part of his personality than it is to be a part of his illness,” Skipworth said.
“Well, we don’t really know, do we?” Gill said.
“I’m here to give my expert opinion on it, and I’ve just told you,” Skipworth replied.
He said none of the CCTV footage or interviews around the time of the fire showed evidence the defendant was seriously unwell, and it was not until about seven weeks after his arrest that he deteriorated to a point he would consider to be seriously unwell.
There was no evidence in the CCTV footage the man was talking to himself or responding to voices, he said.
“He’s purposeful, he’s co-ordinated, he’s determined.”
Skipworth also said it was “not possible” for the man to mask a serious thought disorder if his mental state deteriorated.
When asked by the Crown on re-examination about today’s outburst and whether the man’s angry outbursts in general were a symptom of his personality disorder, Skipworth said: “Well, I think they’re consistent today with him being very angry. He threatened to kill me.”
The jury has heard from three mental health experts so far, including Skipworth.
Dr Justin Barry-Walsh gave evidence earlier in the trial that he did not believe the defendant was insane at the time of the offending. He noted the man had never before reported being commanded by voices to do something, and that the commands he reported were unusually specific compared to other cases.
Dr Krishnen Pillay gave evidence earlier this week for the defence, saying he did believe the man was insane at the time.
He referred to behaviours the man exhibited that could be signs he was responding to non-apparent stimuli during interviews and disagreed with the other experts about the level of unwellness those signs showed. He agreed on cross-examination his opinion was primarily based on the defendant’s own account of the night.
The trial continues.
