Citation: Regina v Gillett [1999] NSWSC 115
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Criminal Division)
Date: 24 February 1999
Judge(s): Greg James J
Background
The accused was charged with maliciously wounding his father, a double amputee, at their shared residence in Mona Vale on 5 April 1998. The victim was found by police with severe wounds consistent with an attack by a mattock. He died on 15 April 1998 during his recovery, though the Crown proceeded only on the wounding charge given uncertainty about whether the accused's acts caused the death.
The accused had a lengthy history of schizophrenia, first diagnosed in approximately 1990 and confirmed after a prior attack on his mother in 1991. He had been subject to a community treatment order and medicated regularly with Haldol, but had begun using alcohol in the months before the offence. The matter proceeded by judge alone, following a written election by the accused under the Criminal Procedure Act.
The accused denied recollection of the attack. Psychiatric evidence indicated that at the time of the wounding, he was in the grip of an acute psychotic episode, believing his father was planning to kill him and acting in response to persuasive auditory hallucinations.
Legal Issues
- Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts constituting malicious wounding with the requisite intent.
- Whether the accused satisfied the mental illness defence, such that he was not criminally responsible for his actions at the time of the offence.
- Whether the court should exercise its discretion to retain the matter, given it arose in the Supreme Court on what was initially a murder charge.
Decision
Greg James J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted the wounds on his father with intent to injure. The court relied on the accused's presence at the scene, his flight immediately afterward, the nature of the attack, and its consistency with his diagnosed psychiatric condition. The accused's denials were characterised as likely stemming from a lucid recognition of the tragedy rather than a genuine absence of involvement.
On the question of mental illness, the court accepted the unanimous and unchallenged evidence of two psychiatrists, Dr Westmore and Dr Nielssen. Both were of the opinion that the accused was acutely psychotic at the time of the offence, suffering an exacerbation of chronic schizophrenia. Dr Nielssen's evidence was that the accused attacked his father because he believed his father was trying to kill him, and that he was driven by persuasive auditory hallucinations. While the accused was aware of the nature and quality of his act, he did not know it was wrong, as he was acting under a delusional belief that he was in danger.
Applying the M'Naghten test as confirmed in Porter and given statutory form in section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, the court found the mental illness defence established on the balance of probabilities. A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was entered.
Orders Made
- The accused was ordered to be detained in strict custody at the A Ward of the Long Bay Prison Hospital, and thereafter in such other place as determined according to law, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court applied the M'Naghten test, as confirmed in Regina v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182, which requires that the accused, by reason of a disease of the mind, either did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that it was wrong.
- Unanimous, unchallenged psychiatric evidence is a significant factor in establishing the mental illness defence; the court accepted both experts' opinions without reservation.
- A delusional belief that a victim intended to cause the accused harm, arising from an acute psychotic episode, can satisfy the limb of the M'Naghten test requiring that the accused did not know the act was wrong.
- Under section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release; section 39 requires the court to order detention until the accused is released by due process of law.
- The court noted that an accused's post-offence denials, where made following restoration of mental functioning through medication, may reflect a lucid comprehension of events rather than evidence that the offence was not committed.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act (NSW), ss 16A, 32(1)(b), 32(3)
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
- Evidence Act (NSW), s 184
Cases
- Regina v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25
- Regina v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
- Regina v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182