Citation: R v Gardiner (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 239
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 March 2011
Judge: Buddin J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of his aunt, Elizabeth Phillips, at Casino in northern New South Wales on the night of 4 to 5 September 2009. Ms Phillips, who used a wheelchair at home due to diabetic complications requiring amputation of both legs below the knee, had been directed by bail conditions to house the accused after he had displayed signs of mental disturbance at a local police station. The accused had a lengthy history of mental illness, significant alcohol and drug dependency, and previous dealings under mental health legislation.
On the night in question, the accused had spent the evening drinking and became involved in a fight at a hotel before attending the police station complaining he had been assaulted. He returned home and, following a loud argument with the deceased, repeatedly stabbed her as she lay in bed. Afterwards, he walked into the street carrying the knife, yelling to neighbours and acquaintances that he had killed his aunt, and making threatening statements.
The accused pleaded not guilty on the basis of mental illness. He had elected a trial by judge alone under s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, with the Crown's consent. A formal admission was made that the accused had killed the deceased with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, leaving mental illness as the sole issue for determination.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the killing, within the legal meaning established by the M'Naghten rules, so as to warrant a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness.
- Specifically, whether the accused was unable to know that what he was doing was wrong, by reason of a disordered condition of the mind.
Decision
Both parties agreed that the evidence supported a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness, and Buddin J accepted that position without hesitation. Two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Nielssen and Dr Roberts, provided expert opinions directed specifically at the applicable legal test: whether the accused's mental disorder meant he was unable to know, in the relevant sense, that his actions were wrong according to the everyday standards of reasonable people.
Buddin J applied the established legal standard, drawn from the M'Naghten rules as interpreted in Australian jurisprudence. That test asks whether, by reason of a disordered condition of the mind, the accused could not reason about the act with a moderate degree of sense and composure, such that he could not know what he was doing was wrong by ordinary community standards. The judge noted that the expert opinions were precisely addressed to this test.
Taking into account the accused's considerable history of mental illness, his disturbed behaviour and delusional beliefs in the days leading up to the killing (including beliefs that he had served in the military in Iraq), and his conduct immediately before and after the stabbing, Buddin J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused did not know in the relevant sense that his actions were wrong. Both experts were described as eminently qualified in forensic psychiatry, and their opinions were accepted in full.
Orders Made
- The accused was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
- The accused was ordered to be detained in the custody of Corrective Services NSW until released by due process of law, pursuant to s 39 of the Act.
- The Registrar was directed to notify the Minister of Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the orders made.
- The reports of Dr Nielssen and Dr Roberts were directed to be drawn to the attention of Justice Health.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court applied the M'Naghten rules as the governing test for mental illness, requiring the accused to establish on the balance of probabilities that a disordered condition of the mind prevented him from knowing his act was wrong by ordinary community standards.
- A finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release: under s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the court ordered detention in custody until release by due process of law, reflecting the protective function of the regime.
- Where both prosecution and defence accept that the mental illness defence is established, the court remains obliged to satisfy itself independently that the evidence supports the finding, including by reference to the practical and legal consequences under s 37 of the Act (as confirmed in R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177).
- Expert psychiatric evidence directed specifically at the legal test, rather than at clinical diagnosis alone, was central to the court's acceptance of the defence.
- An election for trial by judge alone under s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 is available in murder proceedings where the Crown consents, and the judge is bound by the obligations in s 133 when reaching a verdict, as confirmed by reference to Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132(1), 133
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 37, 38, 39
- Mental Health Act (NSW)
Cases
- Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
- R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
- Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358 (cited in the judgment's discussion of the M'Naghten test)