Citation: R v Okumu [2008] NSWSC 242
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 March 2008
Judge(s): Barr J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of his wife at their home in Rankin Park, a suburb of Newcastle, on 5 July 2006. The couple had married in East Africa and migrated to Australia in 2004 with their children. In the months before the death, the accused had been working away from Newcastle and, when home, slept separately from the deceased.
In the early hours of 2 July 2006, the deceased was found unconscious having suffered severe blunt force trauma to the head. She was taken to hospital and declared brain dead on 5 July 2006, when life support was withdrawn. The accused left the area, telephoned police to report what had occurred, and surrendered to police the following day at Gulgong.
The trial proceeded before Barr J alone, following the accused's election for judge-alone trial and the Crown's consent. The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of mental illness, seeking the special verdict available under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused had established, on the balance of probabilities, the defence of mental illness.
- Specifically, whether, at the time of the killing, a mental disease so disordered the accused's faculties that he was unable to appreciate the wrongness of his act or reason about it with a moderate degree of sense and composure.
- What orders should follow upon a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.
Decision
Barr J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had delivered the fatal blows and had intended to kill the deceased. The factual elements of the offence were not in dispute.
On the mental illness defence, the court heard from two consultant psychiatrists: Dr Nielssen, retained by the defence, and Dr Wilcox, nominated by the Crown. Both had access to witness statements, police interview transcripts, and the accused's custodial psychiatric records. The accused had a history of auditory hallucinations spanning more than 20 years. In his police interview, he described being directed by a voice in a dream to kill his wife before she killed him, and stated that he acted on that belief upon waking.
Both psychiatrists supported the conclusion that the accused was suffering from a serious mental illness at the time of the offence, and that this illness deprived him of the capacity to reason about the moral quality of his act with any moderate degree of calmness. The court accepted that evidence and found the defence of mental illness established on the balance of probabilities.
Barr J explained the consequences of the special verdict in detail. The accused would be held as a forensic patient and subject to ongoing review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Release, whether conditional or unconditional, would require the Tribunal to be satisfied that neither the accused's safety nor that of any member of the public would be seriously endangered. Any conditional release would involve ministerial oversight and could be revoked upon a breach of conditions.
Orders Made
- The accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness.
- The accused is to be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre, or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- The mental illness defence in NSW requires the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a disease of the mind so disordered the accused's faculties that the accused could not reason about the moral quality of the act with a moderate degree of sense and composure.
- A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. The accused is detained as a forensic patient subject to periodic review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- Under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the Tribunal cannot recommend release unless satisfied that the safety of the accused and any member of the public would not be seriously endangered.
- Consistent psychiatric evidence from both the defence and Crown experts, supported by a long documented history of auditory hallucinations and the accused's own account of acting on delusional beliefs, was central to the court's acceptance of the mental illness defence.
- Conditional release, if ever ordered, remains subject to ministerial approval and ongoing community health supervision, with any breach capable of resulting in immediate redetention.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases:
- No cases were cited in the judgment text provided.