AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
2
Court of Criminal Appeal 6 July 2004

R v Williams

[2004] NSWCCA 224

Assault & violence

Citation: R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 224
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 6 July 2004
Judge(s): Studdert J (primary reasons); Dunford J; Howie J

Background

The appellant was charged with malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm following an incident in Glen Innes on 9 June 2000. He attacked an acquaintance with a knife while making references to spiritual possession and demons, causing a deep cut to the victim's hand. Two bystanders helped restrain the appellant until police arrived.

The appellant was initially found unfit to stand trial at a District Court hearing in April 2001. Following review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal and a direction from the Attorney General, a special hearing was conducted at Inverell District Court in November 2001. At that hearing, two forensic psychiatrists gave evidence diagnosing the appellant with chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia and opining that he was mentally ill at the time of the offence. The jury returned a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness, and the trial judge ordered detention in a psychiatric hospital.

The appellant appeared unrepresented before the Court of Criminal Appeal. His central complaint was that his trial lawyer had insisted on running the mental illness defence over his explicit objections, depriving him of the right to defend himself on the merits.

  • Whether the appeal against the special verdict was competent under s 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act, given that the appellant had been acquitted rather than convicted.
  • Whether the defence of mental illness could lawfully be raised at a special hearing without the accused's consent.
  • Whether, even if some procedural error had occurred, the Court of Criminal Appeal should exercise its power under s 7(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act to make the same order as the court below.

Decision

The Crown raised a threshold question of competency, arguing that an appeal under s 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act was not available because the appellant had not been convicted. Studdert J noted this challenge but proceeded to address the merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal on substantive grounds in any event.

On the central question of whether a mental illness defence can be advanced without the accused's consent, Studdert J reviewed the relevant authorities. Under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, a special hearing differs from an ordinary criminal trial in significant respects, and the psychiatric evidence before the court was unambiguous: both Dr Westmore and Dr Nielssen concluded that the appellant was mentally ill at the time of the offence and that mental illness had deprived him of the capacity to know that his actions were wrong. Dr Nielssen expressly noted that the appellant's lack of insight was itself a symptom of his illness.

Even if the Court had been persuaded to set aside the special verdict on the basis that the defence was run without the appellant's instructions, Studdert J held that s 7(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act would require the same outcome. That provision empowers the Court, on appeal, to quash a conviction and order detention in strict custody where it is satisfied the appellant was mentally ill at the relevant time. On the evidence before the Court, no other order would have been appropriate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders Made

  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that where evidence firmly establishes mental illness at the time of the offence, the same detention order will follow regardless of whether the original special verdict is disturbed.
  • Under s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act (as it then stood), detention in a psychiatric hospital was mandatory following a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness; the trial judge had no discretion to make any other order.
  • A finding of mental illness at trial can, in certain circumstances, be pursued even without the accused's consent, particularly at a special hearing where psychiatric evidence is overwhelming and the accused's lack of insight is itself a recognised symptom of the diagnosed illness.
  • Section 7(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act provides the Court of Criminal Appeal with a broad power to order detention where it is satisfied on appeal that the appellant was mentally ill at the time of the relevant act, making it possible to reach the same outcome by a different legal route.
  • Sufficient evidence of chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia, supported by two independent forensic psychiatrists who each concluded the accused was totally deprived of the capacity to know his actions were wrong, underpinned both the original jury verdict and the appellate court's reasoning.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Appeal Act, ss 5, 7
- Criminal Appeal Rules, r 23C
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, ss 11, 14, 18, 39

Cases:
- R v Greig (1996) 89 A Crim R 254
- R v Logan [2004] NSWCCA 101
- R v Stephens [1999] NSWSC 811