Psychiatrist backtracks on claim Joel Cauchi's Bondi stabbing had 'nothing to do with psychosis'
The psychiatrist initially suggested Joel Cauchi was not psychotic at the time of the Bondi Junction stabbing attack, before withrdrawing her evidence. (ABC News: Monish Nand)
In short:
A psychiatrist who treated Joel Cauchi has withdrawn her evidence suggesting the stabber was not psychotic at the time of the Bondi Junction Westfield attack.
Dr A, who cannot be identified, argued on Tuesday that Cauchi was instead influenced by a "hatred towards women".
Evidence from other psychiatric experts had been unanimous that he was "floridly psychotic" on the day of the attack.
A psychiatrist who treated Joel Cauchi has conceded she was wrong to suggest the Bondi Junction stabber was not psychotic at the time of the 2024 attack.
Dr A, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, saw Cauchi for his treatment-resistant schizophrenia between 2012 and 2020.
WARNING: This story contains content that readers may find distressing.
At the coronial inquest on Tuesday, Dr A argued Cauchi's stabbing rampage had "nothing to do with psychosis" but was influenced by his "hatred towards women".
Evidence from other psychiatric experts has been clear and unanimous that Cauchi was "floridly psychotic" on the day of the attack.
On Wednesday under cross-examination by Sue Chrysanthou SC, who represents some of the victims' families, the barrister argued Dr A's evidence was "dishonest".
"It was conjecture on my part and I should not have said that," Dr A responded, withdrawing her initial evidence.
Psychiatrist questioned over her diagnosis
The psychiatrist was questioned heavily over apparent disparities in the specific schizophrenia she diagnosed Cauchi with.
Dr A argued she had diagnosed Cauchi with first episode schizophrenia despite her email to Cauchi's GP in 2012 confirming she had diagnosed him with chronic paranoid and disorganised schizophrenia.
A chronic diagnosis would suggest a requirement of lifelong care and treatment, which includes antipsychotic medication.
"It was a working diagnosis," Dr A said, though no notes were produced to the court showing a revised non-chronic diagnosis.
"There was no evidence that he heard voices," Dr A said, to which Ms Chrysanthou acknowledged an email from Cauchi's mother to Dr A's clinic in November 2019.
Ms Cauchi had reported concerns her son was "now hearing voices" and writing notes he was "under satanic control".
Dr A told the court during a cross-examination there was "no evidence" that Cauchi heard voices. (Supplied)
The barrister suggested it was an early warning sign of relapse or psychosis.
Dr A argued Ms Cauchi was a "beautiful mother but not a psychiatrist".
"That is not evidence. That is just outside description. It was an opinion of the mother."
Tense exchange with barrister representing victims' families
The court heard tense back-and-forth between Ms Chrysanthou and Dr A on Wednesday, including one point where the psychiatrist told the barrister, "I don't think you have any degree in medicine".
Ms Chrysanthou suggested that early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia were a sign or evidence of psychosis.
"That's not true I have to educate you," Dr A said, to which the barrister replied: "I don't want to be educated, I just want you to answer the question."
Ms Chrysanthou asked Dr A why she did not effectively provide a handover in clinical notes and files after a request from Cauchi's new medical centre in November 2020.
Sue Chrysanthou SC argued that Dr A's evidence on Tuesday was "dishonest". (ABC News: Greg Bigelow)
"It was impractical … If they're not happy, they [should] come back for more," she said, suggesting the medical centre should have followed up.
"I felt as a private psychiatrist I had done the exit … I can't change the system."
Dr A's barrister, Mark Lynch, asked the psychiatrist whether she had done her utmost to tell the truth when giving her evidence at the inquest.
"In here, definitely," she said.
The inquest continues.