Citation: REGINA v Elizabeth Anne BURDIS [1999] NSWSC 614
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 June 1999
Judge(s): Sully J
Background
The accused was charged with murdering her father by stabbing, wounding her mother with intent to murder, and maliciously wounding her sister. All three offences occurred on the evening of 29 March 1998 at a family property in Rous, NSW. The violence arose after a minor domestic dispute about food and was carried out with a kitchen knife.
The accused had elected to be tried by judge alone under s 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). No oral evidence was called at trial; the parties proceeded entirely on agreed documentary evidence, including an agreed statement of facts.
The sole issue at trial was whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the offences in the sense required to establish the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown had proved the physical elements (the actus reus) of each of the three counts beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the accused had established, on the balance of probabilities, that she was mentally ill at the time of the offences within the meaning of s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), such that she was not criminally responsible for her actions.
Decision
Sully J found that the Crown had proved the actus reus of all three charges beyond reasonable doubt. This was not in dispute. The only contested matter was the mental illness defence.
The court applied the test in R v McNaughton (1843), as elaborated by the High Court in Sodeman v R (1943): that the accused, as a result of a disease of the mind, either did not know the nature and quality of her act, or did not know that what she was doing was wrong. The court also considered that the concept of "wrongness" encompasses more than legal wrongness; it includes the inability to reason calmly about the moral quality of an act due to the operation of the mental illness itself.
On the evidence, Sully J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was mentally ill at the time of each offence within the legal definition. The defence was therefore established on all three counts, and the court returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness on each count.
The court also addressed a victim impact statement prepared by the accused's sister, who was herself among the victims. While the statement could not affect the legal outcome, Sully J acknowledged it with evident care, expressing sincere condolences to the surviving family members and a particular concern for the accused's young daughter. The court also directly expressed a hope that media reporting, if any, would be conducted with restraint.
Orders Made
- Verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness entered on each of the three counts.
- The accused was ordered to be detained as a forensic patient at the Bunya Unit of the Cumberland Hospital until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), the onus of proving mental illness rests on the accused on the balance of probabilities, a lower standard than the Crown's burden on the substantive charges.
- The foundational test for the mental illness defence derives from R v McNaughton (1843): the accused must have been suffering from a disease of the mind such that they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or did not know it was wrong.
- "Knowledge of wrongness" in this context extends beyond mere legal awareness; where mental illness prevents an accused from reasoning with moderate calmness about the moral quality of their act, the test may still be satisfied, as the High Court confirmed in Sodeman v R (1943).
- A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. The accused was ordered to be detained at a psychiatric facility as a forensic patient, subject to release only by due process of law and upon appropriate conditions.
- Victim impact statements are receivable and are to be treated with respectful seriousness by the court, but they cannot, as a matter of law, alter the outcome of a criminal trial.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), s 38
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 32(1)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
Cases
- Regina v McNaughton (1843) 8 ER 718
- Sodeman v R (1943) 55 CLR 192