AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 22 February 2008

R v Norman Steven FIELD

[2008] NSWSC 85

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS MENTAL HEALTH

Citation: R v Norman Steven Field [2008] NSWSC 85
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 February 2008
Judge(s): Howie J

Background

The accused was charged with murdering his mother on 20 April 2006. Following a judge-alone trial, Howie J acquitted him on the grounds of mental illness, finding that he had been suffering from a delusional episode of chronic paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the killing, during which he believed his mother was trying to poison him.

Following the special verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, the court was required to determine what orders to make under s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 for the accused's disposition. The accused was remanded in custody under s 38(2) of the Act while the matter was stood over for further hearing.

The central question was the appropriate form of detention order, given the accused's ongoing mental illness, his treatment-resistant condition, and the availability of a specialised forensic psychiatric unit.

  • What orders should be made under s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 following a not-guilty verdict on the grounds of mental illness?
  • Whether it was appropriate for the court to make placement and treatment orders given the parallel statutory review role of the Mental Health Tribunal.
  • Whether the threshold for release from custody under s 39(2) (no serious endangerment of the person or the public) was satisfied.
  • Whether the accused could be ordered into the Bunya Forensic Unit at Cumberland Hospital, including with provision for escorted leave.

Decision

Howie J held that the court retained a distinct and operative function under s 39 to make detention and placement orders, separate from the Mental Health Tribunal's role. If the court simply declined to make orders on the basis that the Tribunal would later make recommendations to the Minister, s 39 would serve no purpose. The Tribunal's obligation to review forensic patients under s 41(1) arises regardless of any court orders made.

On the question of release, the expert evidence did not support unconditional or conditional release into the community. Two psychiatrists, Dr Westmore and Dr Giuffrida, agreed that the accused required long-term psychiatric supervision in a secure forensic facility. Dr Delaforce's more favourable assessment did not lead Howie J to a different conclusion. The accused's condition was described as treatment-resistant, with a history of sudden relapses even while on antipsychotic medication.

Dr Giuffrida gave evidence that the accused could not be admitted to the Bunya Forensic Unit at Cumberland Hospital unless the court authorised escorted leave within the Unit's grounds and, ultimately, into the general community. Without such an order, placement at Bunya within the following 18 months was unlikely. The court accepted this evidence and made an order in the form sought by the defence, with the Crown raising no objection.

Orders Made

  • The accused is to be detained in the custody of the Department of Corrective Services until a place becomes available at the Bunya Forensic Unit at Cumberland Hospital.
  • Upon transfer to the Bunya Forensic Unit, the accused is to be detained in the custody of that Unit.
  • While at the Unit, the person in charge may, if thought appropriate, authorise escorted leave within the grounds of Cumberland Hospital or escorted leave into the general community.
  • The court recommended that, while in the custody of the Department of Corrective Services, the accused be housed in a hospital or other place where he can receive treatment for his mental illness.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 39(1) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the Supreme Court has a distinct power to make detention and placement orders following a special verdict of not guilty on grounds of mental illness, and that power is not displaced by the Mental Health Tribunal's separate review functions.
  • A court cannot order release from custody under s 39(2) unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the safety of the person or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered.
  • Where expert evidence established that an accused required long-term secure psychiatric supervision following an acquittal on mental illness grounds, the court declined to order community release and instead directed placement in a specialist forensic unit.
  • Orders authorising escorted leave in the grounds of a forensic unit, or into the community, may be necessary to enable the accused's admission to a unit such as Bunya, given the unit's internal operational requirements for managing patient transitions.
  • The Mental Health Tribunal is required by s 41(1) to review a forensic patient as soon as practicable after a not-guilty finding on mental illness grounds, irrespective of any orders the court makes under s 39.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38(2), 39, 41(1), 41(2)

Cases:
- R v Line [2004] NSWSC 1148 (Simpson J)
- R v Xu [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 70 (Kirby J)