Citation: R v Gordon Francis Chang SZETO [2008] NSWSC 368
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 April 2008
Judge(s): Howie J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of a cafe owner, which occurred on 8 January 2007. The accused, a former kitchen hand at the victim's cafe, entered the premises armed with a knife and stabbed the victim repeatedly in the neck in a laneway behind the cafe, in front of multiple witnesses. He was arrested at the scene.
Following his arrest, the accused made statements to police referencing a conspiracy against him and surveillance by federal law enforcement or a spy agency. A search of his home revealed extensive written material documenting elaborate delusional beliefs, including claims that the deceased had kidnapped and sexually abused the accused's former girlfriend. These materials had been constructed over a period of approximately three years.
The accused had also been charged in November 2006 with assaulting his former girlfriend, an incident the accused believed was connected to his delusional conspiracy narrative. By the time of trial, the accused was receiving antipsychotic medication and, while still mentally unwell, was fit to stand trial. The sole issue before the court was whether the defence of mental illness was established.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing that satisfied the M'Naghten Rules, specifically whether he was labouring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind that he did not know what he was doing was wrong, or could not reason about the consequences of his actions
- Whether the verdict of not guilty on grounds of mental illness was the only available verdict on the agreed facts and psychiatric evidence
Decision
The trial proceeded by judge alone under s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, determined on an agreed statement of facts, witness statements, two forensic psychiatry reports, and a recording of a police interview. No witnesses were called. The Crown conceded that the mental illness defence was open on the evidence.
Both forensic psychiatrists gave consistent evidence. Dr Bruce Westmore, retained by the defence, diagnosed the accused with a psychotic illness and concluded the mental illness defence was available. Dr Olav Nielssen, retained by the Crown, diagnosed chronic schizophrenia and formed the same view. Both noted that the accused was acutely mentally ill at the time of the killing. Howie J found the psychiatric evidence overwhelming, noting the accused's visibly disordered state immediately after the stabbing and his prompt diagnosis and transfer to a prison hospital following reception into custody.
Howie J applied the M'Naghten Rules and was satisfied to any standard of proof that the accused had been suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason such that, at the time of the killing, he either did not know that what he was doing was wrong or could not reason about the consequences of his actions. The killing was found to be a direct product of a severe delusional state arising from paranoid schizophrenia that had been developing undiagnosed for approximately three years.
The court recorded that but for the mental illness defence, the accused would have been guilty of murder, having at minimum intended really serious injury to the deceased. The court found there was only one available verdict and returned a finding of not guilty on grounds of mental illness.
Orders Made
- The accused is not guilty of the charge of murder on the grounds of mental illness.
- Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the accused is to be detained in a correctional centre, subject to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- A not guilty verdict on grounds of mental illness does not result in immediate release. Howie J expressly noted that the accused would remain detained until the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the responsible minister were satisfied he presented no danger to himself or the community.
- The M'Naghten Rules require proof that, at the time of the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the quality of the act, not to know it was wrong, or to be unable to reason about its consequences.
- Where both the Crown and defence forensic psychiatrists agree on diagnosis and on the availability of the mental illness defence, this may properly support a Crown concession that the defence is open, and a determination on the papers without oral evidence.
- A judge-alone trial under s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 can be an appropriate vehicle for resolving a mental illness defence where the facts are agreed and the psychiatric evidence is uncontested.
- Upon a finding of not guilty on grounds of mental illness, the accused becomes a forensic patient classified and managed under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, distinct from the ordinary mental health detention regime that applied during remand.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) (now repealed), s 97(2)
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Legal Tests:
- M'Naghten Rules (the common law test for the defence of mental illness)
Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.