AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 12 August 2011

R v RM

[2011] NSWSC 861

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCE OF MURDER TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE

Citation: R v RM [2011] NSWSC 861
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 August 2011
Judge(s): Buddin J

Background

The accused, a 34-year-old former psychologist, was charged with the murder of her 17-month-old son on 24 August 2009. The accused and the child's father had been living together in separate bedrooms at the time of the offence, having stayed in the same household for the sake of their child. The father discovered the deceased child in his cot that evening, with a handwritten note on his chest that read: "I am sorry I had to protect [BM] and I from the asp reptilians. God forgive me."

The accused had a lengthy documented history of mental illness, including anxiety and panic attacks from childhood, two prior hospitalisations following drug overdoses, and a 2007 admission during which she experienced auditory hallucinations. In the years preceding the offence, multiple people who knew her reported increasingly disturbed beliefs, including convictions about reptilian aliens, surveillance aircraft, UFOs hovering over her home, and telepathic communication with a rock musician.

The accused elected to be tried by judge alone under section 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, with the Crown's consent. It was not in dispute that she killed the deceased with the intention required for murder. The sole question before the court was whether she was mentally ill at the time of the killing.

  • Whether the accused satisfied the legal test for the defence of mental illness under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, specifically whether she was unable to know that her act was wrong at the time of the killing.
  • Whether the court should return a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness, with consequential orders for detention.

Decision

Both parties agreed, on the basis of unanimous expert psychiatric evidence, that the accused did not know her act was wrong at the time of the killing. Three forensic psychiatrists, identified as Dr Nielssen, Dr Furst, and Dr Allnutt, each provided opinions directed specifically to the legal test the court was required to apply. Buddin J accepted their opinions without hesitation, noting each was eminently qualified in forensic psychiatry.

The applicable legal test, drawn from established authority, asks whether the accused, through a disease, defect, or disorder of the mind, was unable to think rationally about the reasons that ordinarily make an act right or wrong, judged by the everyday standards of reasonable people. In other words, the question is not merely whether the accused knew what they were doing, but whether they could reason about its moral character with a moderate degree of sense and composure.

Buddin J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities (the standard that the defence bears) that the accused did not know her act was wrong in that relevant sense. He accepted the agreed submission of the parties and entered a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. Before doing so, he noted that he had taken into account the practical and legal consequences of that finding, as required by section 37 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, following the approach of Hall J in R v Coleman.

Orders Made

  • The accused was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness under section 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 section 39 of the Act.
  • The Registrar was directed to notify the Minister of Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the terms of the orders.
  • The psychiatric reports of Dr Nielssen, Dr Furst, and Dr Allnutt were directed to be drawn to the attention of Justice Health.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court confirmed that the mental illness defence requires proof on the balance of probabilities that the accused, by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder, was unable to know that their act was wrong by the everyday standards of reasonable people.
  • Where all parties and all expert witnesses agree on the mental illness question, a judge alone is still required to engage independently with the evidence and the legal test before returning a verdict.
  • Under section 37 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, a court must have regard to the practical and legal consequences of a not guilty by reason of mental illness finding before entering that verdict.
  • A finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in the accused's unconditional release. The accused is detained in custody until released by due process of law, with the Mental Health Review Tribunal and Minister of Health notified of the court's orders.
  • A lengthy documented psychiatric history, supported by consistent lay and expert evidence of deteriorating delusional beliefs in the period preceding an offence, formed the factual foundation for the mental illness finding in this case.

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

Cases:
- Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
- R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
- Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358 (referenced in the judgment's discussion of the mental illness test)