Citation: Regina v Robert Etienne [2007] NSWSC 1114
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 October 2007
Judge(s): Bell J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of his father, John Dennis Etienne, at Bateau Bay between 10 and 14 August 2006. At the time, the accused was living in a granny flat at the rear of his parents' home, having returned from Victoria following the breakdown of his de facto relationship. His mother was away visiting family in Sydney during the relevant period.
The evidence established that the accused and the deceased spent the evening of 11 August 2006 at a local bowling club before returning home. A neighbour heard a prolonged and intensifying argument coming from the backyard that night, ending in sudden silence. When the deceased's wife and daughter returned on 14 August, they found him on the floor of the granny flat. A post-mortem examination revealed he died from stab wounds, including one to the heart. The accused was not present and was later located by police in Albury.
The trial proceeded before Bell J sitting alone, following the accused's election for a judge-alone trial under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The elements of the offence were not in dispute. The sole issue was whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the offence so as not to be responsible in law for his actions.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of the murder charge
- Whether the accused had established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was mentally ill within the meaning of the mental illness defence under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, so as not to be responsible in law for his acts at the time of the offence
Decision
Bell J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the elements of the murder offence were established. The circumstantial evidence, including the argument heard by the neighbour, the post-mortem findings, the presence of a blood-stained knife at the premises, and the accused's own admissions in his police interview, collectively proved that the accused stabbed his father with the requisite intent.
On the mental illness defence, two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Giuffrida and Dr Neilssen, provided unchallenged expert evidence that the accused suffered from chronic schizophrenia. Both concluded that, in the months leading up to the offence, the accused's illness had manifested in paranoid psychotic beliefs, including a belief that his parents were trying to poison him. Dr Neilssen opined that while the accused was aware of the nature and quality of his act, he did not appreciate that his actions were morally wrong, and was incapable of reasoning with sense or composure about their consequences.
The Crown accepted the expert evidence and conceded that the defence of mental illness was available. Bell J accepted that the accused had established on the balance of probabilities that he was mentally ill so as not to be responsible in law for his acts at the time of the stabbing. A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was returned accordingly.
Orders Made
- Robert John Etienne is to be detained in a correctional centre or such other facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- The mental illness defence under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 requires the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he was mentally ill so as not to be responsible in law for his acts at the time of the offence. The standard is civil, not criminal.
- A finding that the accused was aware of the nature and quality of his act does not preclude the mental illness defence. Bell J accepted that the defence was established where the accused could not appreciate the moral wrongness of his actions and was unable to reason with composure about their consequences.
- Unchallenged and conceded psychiatric evidence, accepted by both the defence and the Crown, formed the evidential foundation for the special verdict in this case.
- A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. The Supreme Court ordered the accused's detention pending determination by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- Under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, a judge trying a matter without a jury must set out the principles of law applied and the findings of fact relied upon, performing the functions that would otherwise fall to a jury.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132(1), 133, 184
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 184
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 37, 38
Cases cited: None identified in the provided text.