AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 27 March 2002

R v Monley

[2002] NSWSC 236

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS

Citation: R v Monley [2002] NSWSC 236
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division (Criminal)
Date: 27 March 2002
Judge(s): Dunford J

Background

The accused was charged with murdering his 69-year-old mother at their shared Housing Department unit in Merewether on 6 September 2001. He had a longstanding history of schizophrenia and depression, had not worked since approximately 1998, and was receiving a disability pension and methadone treatment. He also had a chronic history of cannabis use and intravenous amphetamine and heroin use.

A neighbour heard the deceased calling out in distress and entered the unit to find the accused astride the deceased, who was covered in blood and making choking sounds. The accused was holding what appeared to be a steak knife and had blood on his face and clothing. The deceased died from 15 separate stab wounds, with the autopsy identifying damage to both lungs and the aorta.

The accused was tried by judge alone, by his own election. The only contested issue was whether the defence of mental illness was established. All evidence was tendered by consent through written statements.

  • Whether the prosecution had established that the accused caused the death of the deceased and did so intentionally
  • Whether the accused had established, on the balance of probabilities, the defence of mental illness under the M'Naghten rules: that at the time of the killing he suffered from a disease of the mind that deprived him of the capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong

Decision

Dunford J first found, on the evidence, that the accused caused the deceased's death by inflicting the stab wounds, and that the stabbing was a willed and intentional act. The accused's own admissions in his police interview, combined with the eyewitness account and the autopsy findings, satisfied the court that he intended to kill his mother. The stabbing was unrelated to self-defence or accident.

On the mental illness defence, the court noted that the burden rests on the accused to prove mental illness on the balance of probabilities, in accordance with the High Court's decision in Mizzi v The Queen. The accused's history included multiple admissions to the James Fletcher Hospital, a diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia, and a presentation to hospital just four days before the killing, during which he expressed delusional beliefs that his mother was poisoning him. He absconded from that hospital without follow-up being arranged.

Two psychiatrists, Dr Westmore and Dr Nielssen, provided reports. Both concluded that the accused was acutely mentally ill at the time of the offence. Dr Nielssen's evidence was that the accused was experiencing auditory hallucinations urging him to kill his mother and held a delusional belief that she was trying to poison him, arising from an acute episode of chronic schizophrenia. Dr Nielssen considered the accused was not capable of fabricating those symptoms and was unable, at the time of the offence, to reason with any composure about his actions or recognise that they were morally wrong.

Dunford J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind that deprived him of the capacity to know he ought not to do the act, or that what he was doing was wrong. The court entered a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Orders Made

  • The accused is to be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre, or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court confirmed that the onus of establishing the mental illness defence lies on the accused, on the balance of probabilities, in accordance with Mizzi v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 659.
  • Under the M'Naghten rules, a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is available where a disease of the mind deprives the accused of the capacity to know that what they were doing was wrong at the time of the offence.
  • A finding that the accused acted intentionally does not preclude the mental illness defence: the court was satisfied both that the killing was intentional and that the accused lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of that act.
  • Psychiatric evidence was central to the outcome. Both experts agreed the accused's symptoms were consistent with an acute schizophrenic episode and were not fabricated, and the court relied on their opinions in reaching its conclusion.
  • A not guilty by reason of mental illness verdict does not result in unconditional release. The accused was ordered to be detained in a psychiatric facility pending a determination by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 16(1) (election for trial by judge alone)
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW), s 24 (involuntary admission to hospital)

Cases:
- R v M'Naghten (1843) 10 C&F 200; 8 ER 718 (the foundational test for the mental illness defence)
- Mizzi v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 659 (onus of proof on the accused to establish mental illness)
- Sodeman v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 192 (capacity to know an act is wrong)