Citation: R v Benjamin James Watson [2011] NSWSC 839
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 August 2011
Judge(s): Schmidt J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of his mother at Lake Bathurst, near Goulburn, on 10 March 2010. He had a long history of schizophrenia, paranoid hallucinations, and deteriorating mental health, linked in part to drug use that began during a period of employment in his twenties. In the years before the offending, he had been living with the deceased on the family property, where his behaviour had become increasingly erratic and threatening.
The accused did not dispute that he caused his mother's death. He raised the defence of mental illness, supported by the opinions of two psychiatrists, Dr Robert Lewin and Dr Olav Nielssen, both of whom had assessed him as fit to stand trial but concluded that, at the time of the killing, he was suffering from a mental illness that deprived him of the capacity to know that what he was doing was morally wrong.
The trial proceeded before Schmidt J sitting alone, without a jury, following the accused's election under s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, to which the Crown consented.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown had proven, beyond reasonable doubt, the elements of murder
- Whether the accused had established the defence of mental illness on the balance of probabilities, specifically that he was deprived at the time of the offending of the capacity to know that his actions were morally wrong
- What orders were appropriate following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness
Decision
Schmidt J first confirmed that the Crown had proved the elements of murder before turning to the defence. Both psychiatrists gave unchallenged evidence that the accused was suffering from a serious mental illness at the time of the killing. Their reports were admitted into evidence and neither expert was required for cross-examination, reflecting the absence of any dispute between the parties on the central facts and the psychiatric conclusions.
Applying the test established in R v M'Naghton (1843) and confirmed in Australian jurisprudence through R v Porter (1933) and Stapleton v The Queen (1952), the court assessed whether the accused, by reason of a disease of the mind, was deprived of the capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong in the moral sense. The psychiatric evidence established that the accused's delusional beliefs at the time of the offence, including the conviction that the deceased was not his real mother, were a product of his schizophrenia, and that those delusions deprived him of that moral understanding.
Schmidt J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defence of mental illness was established. The court returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
The judgment also explained the consequences of that verdict to the accused directly: detention in a declared facility until the Mental Health Review Tribunal is satisfied that release would not seriously endanger his safety or the safety of the public, with the possibility of conditional or unconditional release over time.
Orders Made
- The accused was found not guilty by reason of mental illness on the charge of murder.
- The accused was ordered to be detained pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 in Long Bay Prison Hospital, or such other facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law.
- The Registrar was directed to notify the Minister of Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the judgment and orders, and to provide the Tribunal with copies of the exhibits.
Key Takeaways
- A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness requires the court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind that deprived them of the capacity to know their actions were morally wrong.
- The defence of mental illness, as applied in New South Wales, follows the M'Naghton rules as interpreted in R v Porter and Stapleton v The Queen: the relevant question is not merely whether the accused knew the act was legally prohibited, but whether they understood it to be morally wrong.
- Where both parties agree that the elements of the offence are proved and that the mental illness defence is established, the court must nonetheless independently examine the evidence and apply the relevant legal tests before returning a special verdict.
- Under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, a special verdict triggers mandatory detention, with release only available through the Mental Health Review Tribunal upon satisfaction that neither the accused nor the public would be seriously endangered.
- In a judge-alone trial under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the judgment must set out the principles of law applied and the findings of fact relied upon, performing the role that a jury would otherwise discharge.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
Cases
- R v M'Naghton (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
- R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
- Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
- Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77; (1960) 105 CLR 659
- Regina v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177