Citation: R v Adams [2001] NSWSC 1042
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division
Date: 23 November 2001
Judge(s): Sperling J
Background
The offender, a young woman born in August 1982, committed two serious acts of violence while a teenager. At age 16, she stabbed her mother with a knife, causing serious injury. After being taken into custody and detained at a juvenile justice centre, she stabbed and killed a teacher during a cooking class at the school within the centre, at the age of 16 going on 17.
The offender was found unfit to be tried, on the basis of low intelligence and a severe personality disorder. Sperling J conducted a special hearing (a statutory procedure for cases where an accused cannot be tried in the ordinary way) and, on 12 September 2001, made limited findings that the offender had committed malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in relation to the first incident, and manslaughter in relation to the second. The manslaughter finding arose because the offender's capacity to control herself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind stemming from her personality disorder, reducing what would otherwise have been a finding of murder.
The November 2001 judgment addressed what followed those findings: the nomination of limiting terms and the orders governing the offender's custody and referral.
Legal Issues
- What limiting terms should be nominated under s 23(1) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1991 for each offence found at the special hearing?
- How should the totality principle apply when fixing limiting terms for two separate offences?
- Should time already spent in custody be taken into account, and if so, from what date should the limiting terms be backdated?
- What custody order was appropriate pending determination by the Mental Health Review Tribunal?
Decision
Sperling J confirmed that the function of a limiting term is to cap the period for which a person unfit to be tried can be detained in connection with the relevant offences. The overarching statutory test requires the court to estimate the sentence it would have imposed had the special hearing been an ordinary trial of a fit accused found guilty of those offences. That estimate must account for both the objective gravity of the offences and the subjective circumstances of the offender, including mental state at the time and since.
On the first offence, the stabbing of the offender's mother was premeditated. The offender had experienced serious abuse from early childhood and blamed her mother for her mistreatment. On the second offence, although the intent to cause serious harm was present, the killing of the teacher bore different characteristics. The court assessed the objective seriousness of each offence and the relevant subjective factors, including the offender's history of abuse, mental condition, and age, before arriving at its estimates.
Applying the totality principle (which requires that cumulative sentences not exceed what is just and appropriate for the overall criminality), the court reduced the individual estimates slightly. Time served in custody from 26 January 1999 was taken into account, and the limiting terms were backdated accordingly so that the terms ran consecutively from that date.
On custody, Sperling J noted that the offender was then held at Mulawa Correctional Centre in conditions described as unsuitable and inhumane, and that she should properly be accommodated in a secure psychiatric hospital ward. The court observed that, on the evidence before it, no such facility existed in New South Wales for female offenders in her condition. As an interim measure, and with the agreement of both counsel, an order for strict custody was made pending the Tribunal's determination.
Orders Made
- A limiting term of one year nominated for malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, commencing 26 January 1999 and expiring 25 January 2000.
- A limiting term of five years nominated for manslaughter, commencing 26 January 2000 and expiring 25 January 2005.
- The offender referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 24(1)(a).
- The offender ordered to be held in strict custody pursuant to s 24(1)(b).
Key Takeaways
- Under s 23(1) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1991, a limiting term must represent the court's best estimate of the sentence that would have been imposed at an ordinary trial of a fit accused found guilty of the relevant offence, taking into account both objective and subjective sentencing considerations.
- A finding of guilt at a special hearing is a qualified finding only and does not constitute a conviction: s 22(3) of the Act expressly provides this distinction.
- Where an offender's capacity for self-control is substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from a mental condition, s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 permits a finding of manslaughter rather than murder, and this applies in the special hearing context.
- The totality principle applies when nominating limiting terms for multiple offences, requiring the court to ensure the overall period does not exceed what is just for the combined criminality.
- Sperling J expressly noted the absence in New South Wales of a secure psychiatric facility for female offenders in the offender's condition, identifying this as a matter likely to require closer examination once the Mental Health Review Tribunal had made its determination.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 19, 22, 23, 24, 27
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW), s 89
Cases:
- Mitchell (1999) 108 A Crim R 85
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
- Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
- Letteri (NSWCCA, 18 March 1992, unreported)
- Garforth (NSWCCA, 23 May 1994, unreported)
- Street (NSWCCA, 17 December 1996, unreported)