Citation: R v Trimarchi [2002] NSWSC 62
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division, Criminal)
Date: 15 February 2002
Judge(s): Barr J
Background
The accused faced four charges arising from a violent episode on 3 July 2001 in Kempsey. The charges included two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (against two nurses at Kempsey District Hospital), one count of murder (of a 73-year-old fellow patient), and one count of attempted entry of a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. The accused admitted doing all the acts alleged; the only issue before the court was whether he bore legal responsibility for them.
The accused had a history of cannabis use since the age of 14, a prior suicide attempt at 19, and had experienced escalating paranoia and auditory hallucinations for approximately seven years before the offences. In the weeks leading up to 3 July 2001, his behaviour had become markedly more disturbed. He had told family, friends and neighbours that he was Jesus Christ, God, and the Messiah, spoke of collecting apostles to save the world, made threats involving a machete, and was eventually taken to the psychiatric ward of Kempsey District Hospital.
While admitted to that ward in the early hours of 3 July 2001, the accused attacked two nurses, killed the ward's only other patient by striking her repeatedly about the head with a coffee table, then fled and attempted to break into a nearby residence, telling the occupant that he had been instructed to kill her. He was arrested shortly afterwards, found naked in a paddock.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was mentally ill within the legal meaning of that term at the time of the offences, such that he was not criminally responsible for his actions.
- Whether the McNaghten test for mental illness was satisfied: specifically, whether the accused either did not know the nature and quality of his acts, or did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
- Whether a judge-alone trial was appropriate given the nature of the psychiatric evidence.
Decision
Barr J applied the long-established McNaghten test, as developed in Australian law, which asks whether the accused, through a disordered condition of the mind, was unable to reason about the moral quality of his acts with a moderate degree of sense and composure. If a disease of the mind so governed the accused's faculties that he could not reason calmly about whether what he was doing was wrong, the legal test for mental illness is satisfied.
Four psychiatrists gave evidence: Dr Nielssen, Dr Skinner, Dr Westmore, and Dr Mastroianni. All took the view that the accused was acutely mentally ill at the time of the offences. Barr J accepted this evidence. The accused's documented history of escalating paranoid psychosis, his auditory and visual hallucinations, his belief that he was a divine figure acting on supernatural instructions, and the circumstances of the attacks themselves all pointed to an acute psychotic state that deprived him of the capacity to appreciate the wrongness of his conduct.
Barr J also noted the appropriateness of a judge-alone trial in this case, given the nature of the psychiatric evidence, though the judgment does not elaborate on that reasoning at length.
Following the verdict, Barr J explained the statutory framework that would govern the accused's ongoing detention. Under the Mental Health Act 1990, the accused would be held as a forensic patient, subject to periodic review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. That Tribunal could not recommend release unless satisfied that the safety of the accused or any member of the public would not be seriously endangered. Any release, whether conditional or unconditional, required the approval of the Governor-in-Council.
Orders Made
- The accused was found not guilty of all four charges by reason of mental illness.
- The accused was ordered to be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre, or such other place as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- The McNaghten test, as applied in New South Wales, asks whether a disease of the mind prevented the accused from reasoning about the moral quality of his acts with a moderate degree of sense and composure. Inability to appreciate wrongness, not merely unusual motivation, is the operative criterion.
- Where an accused admits the physical acts constituting the offences, a mental illness defence places the burden squarely on the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was mentally ill at the relevant time.
- A verdict of not guilty on grounds of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. The accused becomes a forensic patient subject to ongoing detention and review under the Mental Health Act 1990, with release requiring Tribunal recommendation and Governor-in-Council approval.
- Unanimous psychiatric evidence of acute psychosis at the time of the offences was treated as compelling support for the mental illness finding in this case.
- Judge-alone trials are available in serious criminal matters in New South Wales where the accused elects that form of trial and the Crown consents, including where the principal issue concerns complex psychiatric evidence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases:
- R v McNaghten (1843) (the foundational English authority stating the test for the mental illness defence)