AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 15 April 2003

R v Farrell

[2003] NSWSC 300

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW SPECIAL HEARING MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

Citation: R v Farrell [2003] NSWSC 300
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 April 2003
Judge(s): Sperling J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of his sister, which occurred in the early hours of 1 June 2001 at the family home in Sydney. The victim died at Hornsby Hospital from a stab wound to the back. The accused had been living with his family and was employed at a local hotel on the evening before the killing.

The accused had a documented history of schizophrenia involving paranoid delusions. He had been non-compliant with his prescribed medication in the period leading up to the offence. At an earlier hearing on 30 August 2002, Sperling J had already found the accused unfit to stand trial under s 14 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

As a result of that finding, the matter proceeded as a special hearing under s 19 of that Act. Both the accused and the Director of Public Prosecutions signed an election for trial by judge alone. The accused's case was that he was not guilty on the ground of mental illness.

  • Whether the accused killed the deceased, satisfying the act element of murder
  • Whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the killing within the meaning of the M'Naghten Rules, so as to establish the defence of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
  • Whether, given that finding, it remained necessary to consider the elements of specific intent or diminished responsibility

Decision

Sperling J was satisfied, on the agreed statement of facts and witness statements, that the accused killed the deceased as alleged. That finding established the act element of the offence charged.

Three forensic psychiatrists gave evidence. Dr Westmore and Dr Skinner were retained by the Crown; Dr Samuels was retained for the accused. All three concluded that the accused was suffering from a severe paranoid psychosis at the time of the killing, with prominent delusional beliefs about his sister. The evidence indicated he had reduced or ceased taking his medication in the weeks before the offence.

Sperling J accepted that the accused was acting under such a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind (paranoid schizophrenia), that he either did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not know that what he was doing was wrong. This satisfied the M'Naghten test as incorporated into s 38 of the Act. The defence of mental illness was accordingly made out.

Once that conclusion was reached, there was no need to consider specific intent or diminished responsibility. Sperling J observed, however, that had the defence of mental illness failed, the accused could only have been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder on the basis of diminished responsibility.

Orders Made

  • A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was entered.
  • An order was made under s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 detaining the accused in strict custody until released by due process of law.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, "mentally ill" carries the meaning established by the M'Naghten Rules: the accused must have been labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or not to know that the act was wrong.
  • Where a defence of mental illness arises for consideration, that defence falls for determination before the question of specific intent. It is only if the defence fails that specific intent must be addressed, as confirmed by the High Court in Hawkins (1994) 179 CLR 500.
  • A finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness under s 38 does not result in the accused's release. Section 39 requires the court to order detention in strict custody until released by due process of law.
  • Agreement among Crown-retained and defence-retained psychiatrists on the accused's mental state at the time of the offence formed a significant evidentiary basis for the court's satisfaction that the M'Naghten criteria were met.
  • Sperling J noted, without it forming part of the formal determination, that diminished responsibility would have reduced the offence to manslaughter had the mental illness defence not succeeded.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 14, 19, 21A, 38, 39
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A (referenced in psychiatric evidence)

Cases:
- Hawkins (1994) 179 CLR 500 (High Court of Australia)
- Re M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 CL & F 200