AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 9 July 1999

Regina v Lance Vivian STEPHENS

[1999] NSWSC 811

Homicide
MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS LAW REFORM BAIL ACT 1978

Citation: Regina v Lance Vivian Stephens [1999] NSWSC 811
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 July 1999
Judge(s): Levine J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of his father at Yamba in the early hours of 7 July 1997. The prosecution alleged that the accused beat his father about the head with a claw hammer and stabbed him in the chest and abdomen with a knife, causing his death. The accused entered a plea of not guilty and elected trial by judge alone.

Both the Crown and the defence agreed that no issue of unfitness to stand trial or plead arose. Two issues required determination: first, whether the elements of murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt; and second, whether the defence of mental illness was established on the balance of probabilities.

The trial proceeded entirely on documentary evidence, including police statements, an electronically recorded interview with the accused, a statement from his mother, a post-mortem report, and psychiatric reports obtained by both the Crown and the defence.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased and did so with intent to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.
  • Whether the accused established the defence of mental illness on the balance of probabilities, in accordance with the test in Regina v McNaughton as developed in Australian law.
  • What order was available and appropriate under s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 following a special verdict.
  • Whether s 39 of that Act permitted any form of conditional release analogous to bail conditions, and whether any law reform was warranted.

Decision

Levine J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused his father's death by striking him with a hammer and stabbing him, and that he had done so with the intention to kill. The nature of the blows and the accused's own statements, which referred to a belief that he was about to be killed by his parents, made the intention clear. The post-mortem findings and the mother's statement were described as conclusive on causation.

Turning to the defence of mental illness, His Honour applied the classic McNaughton test: the accused must prove on the balance of probabilities that, as a result of a disease of the mind, he either did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not know that what he was doing was wrong. The psychiatric evidence from both the Crown and the defence was unanimous. The accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with florid persecutory delusions at the time of the killing, including a delusional belief that invisible snakes and beams from outer space placed him and his family at risk, and that his parents were going to kill him. The forensic psychiatrist retained by the Crown concluded that, because of this delusional thinking, the accused could not reason with moderate calmness about the moral quality of his act and was therefore unable to know it was wrong.

His Honour recorded a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. He then addressed the practical difficulty that arose in ordering detention under s 39. Because the trial was conducted at Grafton, a regional location, the facilities ordinarily contemplated by s 39 for detention in a psychiatric institution were not immediately available. Levine J observed that the section appeared not to permit any form of conditional or community-based release analogous to bail conditions, which created a practical problem in cases tried outside metropolitan centres.

His Honour expressed the view that the matter was appropriate for consideration by law reform authorities. He suggested that either s 39 might be amended, or a specific provision introduced in the Bail Act 1978, to address situations where immediate institutional detention is impracticable in country cases and where placement in an unsuitable environment could undo therapeutic progress already made.

Orders Made

  • The accused was ordered to be detained at the Richmond Clinic, Lismore Base Hospital, pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.
  • The accused was ordered to comply with the directions of the medical staff of that facility and any other medical practitioner whose services he seeks.
  • The accused was to remain detained until further order or released by due process of law.

Key Takeaways

  • The defence of mental illness required the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason such that he either did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know it was wrong, applying the test in McNaughton as explained by Dixon J in Porter.
  • Where both the Crown's and the defence's psychiatric evidence unanimously supported the defence of mental illness, the court recorded a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.
  • A special verdict does not result in acquittal without consequence: s 39 of the Act mandates a detention order, and Levine J found that, on its proper construction, the section does not permit conditional or community-based release arrangements equivalent to bail conditions.
  • The decision highlights a practical gap in the legislation as it applies to regional and country trials. Levine J observed that where appropriate psychiatric facilities are not locally accessible, the rigid operation of s 39 may produce outcomes contrary to the evident purpose of the provision.
  • No appellate authority existed at the time on whether "detention" under s 39 could be defined broadly enough to accommodate conditions analogous to those available under the Bail Act 1978, leaving the question open for future resolution.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 37, 38, 39
- Bail Act 1978 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 32(1)

Cases:
- Regina v McNaughton (1853) 8 ER 718
- Rex v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
- Rex v Sodeman (1943) 55 CLR 191
- Regina v Gavranovik (NSW SC 205, unreported, 12 March 1999)
- Regina v John Charles Maxwell (NSW SC 281, unreported, 30 March 1999)
- Regina v Christian Matthew Gillet (NSW SC 115, unreported, 24 February 1999)
- R v Geoffrey Williams Noyes (NSW SC 397, unreported, 27 April 1999)