Citation: Regina v Amete [2000] NSWSC 439
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Criminal Division)
Date: 24 May 2000
Judge(s): Greg James J
Background
The accused was charged with the manslaughter of her three-year-old son at Revesby on 17 June 1999, along with four counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm or common assault against four of her other children. The charges arose from an episode in which she forced large quantities of water into her children's mouths while standing on them, believing she was exorcising the devil from them. Her son drowned during this process.
The accused had begun exhibiting bizarre behaviour from 14 June 1999, including convulsions and speaking in tongues (glossolalia) during a church service. She was seen by members of her church and family to be acting in a severely disturbed manner before the offences occurred.
The matter proceeded as a judge-alone trial, to which both the Crown and defence consented. There was no dispute about the facts, and no question arose as to the accused's fitness to plead or to elect trial by judge alone.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the offences so as not to be responsible in law for her actions, within the meaning of s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
- Whether the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was the appropriate verdict across all counts
- What orders should follow from that verdict under s 39 of the Act
Decision
All psychiatric reports tendered in evidence, obtained by both the Crown and the defence, reached the same conclusion: at the time of the offences, the accused was suffering from a defect of reason caused by a psychotic mental illness, specifically a schizophrenia-spectrum illness, that rendered her not legally responsible for her actions. The diagnosis was further supported by her positive response to antipsychotic treatment following the events.
The court found, as the trier of fact in the judge-alone trial, that the accused had committed the acts charged but was mentally ill at the time within the meaning of s 38. Both the Crown and defence agreed that the special verdict was the only appropriate outcome.
Greg James J returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness on all counts. He then explained to the accused in detail the legal and practical consequences of that verdict, including the regime of continued detention, review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the conditions under which release could eventually be considered.
The court noted that the Tribunal must review the accused's case within 14 days of the verdict, and must conduct reviews at least every six months thereafter. Release, whether conditional or unconditional, requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that neither the accused's safety nor the safety of any member of the public would be seriously endangered.
Orders Made
- Special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness entered on all counts pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
- Order made under s 39 of the Act for the accused to be detained at the Bunya Unit of Cumberland Hospital, and thereafter in such place as determined according to law, until released by due process of law
Key Takeaways
- Where all psychiatric evidence before the court unanimously establishes that an accused suffered a defect of reason from mental illness at the time of the offences, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 is the appropriate outcome.
- A judge sitting alone in a criminal trial under s 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 performs the same fact-finding function as a jury, including returning a special verdict on mental illness grounds.
- Under s 39 of the Act, a special verdict results in detention rather than liberty: the accused is held as a forensic patient in a psychiatric facility until released by the Governor on the recommendation of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- The Mental Health Review Tribunal must commence its review within 14 days of the verdict and must review the case at least every six months thereafter; release cannot be recommended unless the Tribunal is satisfied that neither the accused's safety nor public safety would be seriously endangered.
- The delusional nature of the accused's beliefs, however sincerely held, did not afford a defence in the ordinary sense but rather supported the psychiatric evidence that she lacked legal responsibility for her actions at the relevant time.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 17, 32(1)
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases cited:
- Gillett [1999] NSWSC 115
- Maxwell [1999] NSWSC 281
- Gavranovic [1999] NSWSC 205
- Noyes [1999] NSWSC 397