Citation: R v Mason [2001] NSWSC 400
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 11 May 2001
Judge(s): Hidden J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of a young woman, his former intimate partner, at her home in St Mary's in the early hours of 5 January 2000. It was not in dispute that he had strangled her with a telephone extension cord, nor that he had done so with the intent required for murder. The sole issue at trial was whether he was mentally ill at the time of the killing.
The accused had experienced significant personal losses in the preceding years, including the apparent suicide of a close adopted brother and the death of his adopted mother, both in 1998. Both he and the deceased had a history of drug use, and the accused had been using amphetamines and alcohol heavily in the period leading up to the offence.
In the hours and days after the killing, the accused attended a hospital emergency department in a visibly disturbed state and was subsequently admitted to a psychiatric facility, where he was assessed as exhibiting a schizophreniform psychosis, considered likely to be drug-induced. He was arrested on 8 January 2000 and was soon admitted to the psychiatric ward at Long Bay Prison hospital.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the killing, within the meaning of the criminal law, such that the defence of mental illness was established on the balance of probabilities.
Decision
Two experienced forensic psychiatrists, Dr Olav Nielssen (retained by the Crown) and Dr Bruce Westmore (retained by the defence), provided reports that independently supported the same conclusion. Both assessed the accused as having suffered an acute psychotic episode at the time of the offence, arising from a combination of amphetamine-induced psychosis and his underlying psychological state. Both concluded that his capacity to appreciate the moral wrongness of his actions was compromised at the relevant time.
Hidden J applied the test for mental illness in criminal law as articulated by Dixon J in R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 183. The key question was whether the accused's disordered mental state deprived him of the ability to reason about the moral quality of his act with a moderate degree of sense and composure. On the basis of the psychiatric evidence, his Honour was satisfied that it did.
The accused had elected to be tried by judge alone. His Honour noted that some evidence suggested the accused may have taken steps to conceal the killing, including disposing of the body, but concluded that even those actions may have had their genesis in his psychotic state. In any event, they did not alter the finding that at the moment of the killing he was unable to reason about the moral quality of his act.
The Crown did not submit to the contrary. His Honour was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was mentally ill at the relevant time and returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. His Honour also noted, for the benefit of those affected by the victim's death, that this verdict does not result in the accused's release. Rather, he is detained until the relevant authorities determine it is appropriate to release him.
Orders Made
- The accused be detained at the Prison Hospital at Long Bay, or such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
- The Court expressed its sympathy for the family and all those affected by the death of the deceased.
Key Takeaways
- A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness requires the accused to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that at the time of the offence a disordered mental condition deprived them of the ability to reason about the moral quality of their act with a moderate degree of sense and composure, applying the test from R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 183.
- Where both the Crown's and the defence's forensic psychiatrists reach the same conclusion on the mental illness question, and the Crown does not contest the defence, the evidential threshold is readily met.
- Acute psychosis arising from a combination of amphetamine-induced psychosis and intoxication can satisfy the legal test for mental illness in a criminal trial, provided the requisite cognitive and moral incapacity is established.
- A not guilty by reason of mental illness verdict does not result in unconditional release. The accused is detained and remains subject to ongoing oversight by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- Post-offence conduct suggesting an attempt to conceal a crime does not automatically defeat a mental illness defence. Hidden J found that such conduct must be assessed in the context of the accused's overall mental state at the time.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 183 (Dixon J's formulation of the mental illness test, extensively cited)
Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the judgment text.