AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 19 September 2014

R v Brindley

[2014] NSWSC 1274

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE DECEASED FOUND DEAD IN CELL MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS

Citation: R v Brindley [2014] NSWSC 1274
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 September 2014
Judge: Bellew J

Background

The accused was held on remand at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater awaiting sentence on an unrelated matter. On 30 August 2012, he was moved to share a cell with the deceased. In the early hours of 1 September 2012, the accused made an emergency call from the cell; officers arrived to find the deceased with a ligature knotted tightly around his neck and no pulse. The deceased was pronounced dead after CPR failed.

The Crown's case was that the accused strangled the deceased using an electrical cord detached from a cell television set, then staged the scene to suggest suicide by constructing a ligature from a torn pillowcase and tying it around the deceased's neck. The entire Crown case rested on circumstantial evidence.

The accused denied causing the death and submitted that the Crown had failed to exclude, as a reasonable possibility, that the deceased had brought about his own death, either deliberately or accidentally. The trial proceeded before Bellew J sitting alone, with the Crown's consent, pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

  • Whether the circumstantial evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased.
  • Whether the defence of mental illness was made out, such that the accused was not criminally responsible for any act causing the death.
  • What orders should follow a verdict of not guilty on grounds of mental illness.

Decision

Bellew J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the circumstantial evidence, that the accused had caused the death of the deceased by strangulation. The court rejected the defence submission that the Crown had failed to exclude the deceased's self-inflicted death as a reasonable possibility. The forensic and physical evidence, including the nature of the ligature found at the scene and the post-mortem findings, supported the Crown's account.

Turning to mental illness, the court had before it the expert evidence of two psychiatrists, Dr Skinner and Dr Furst. Both concluded that the accused, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was at the time of the killing suffering from paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations involving the deceased, and was probably unable to reason about the wrongfulness of his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure. The accused had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication but had not been taking it regularly, if at all, in the period leading up to the death. His evidence was that he believed everyone around him, including the deceased, was trying to kill him.

Bellew J applied the established principle that unanimous expert medical evidence on mental illness cannot be rejected by the tribunal of fact in the absence of other material casting doubt on it. No such contrary material existed. The court accepted both psychiatric opinions and found the defence of mental illness made out.

Orders Made

  • The accused was found not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental illness.
  • The accused was ordered to be detained pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 in an appropriate correctional centre, or such facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law.
  • The Registrar was directed to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the orders made.

Key Takeaways

  • Where expert psychiatric evidence on the defence of mental illness is unanimous and no contrary material exists, a tribunal of fact cannot reject that evidence, whether the tribunal is a jury or a judge sitting alone.
  • The defence of mental illness under the McNaghten rules requires, among other things, that the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind producing a defect of reason such that they were probably unable to reason about the wrongfulness of their actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure.
  • A circumstantial Crown case must exclude all reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt; here, the physical and forensic evidence was sufficient to discharge that standard even without direct eyewitness testimony of the killing.
  • A not-guilty verdict on grounds of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. Under s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the court is required to order ongoing detention until the Mental Health Review Tribunal determines otherwise through due process.
  • The accused's history of paranoid schizophrenia, his non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication while on remand, and his delusional belief that others were trying to kill him collectively formed the factual foundation for the successful mental illness defence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132A
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 39

Cases
- Fleming v R [1999] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
- Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131
- Lazaris v R [2014] NSWCCA 163
- Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64
- Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659
- R v Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
- R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
- R v Jenkins [1964] NSWR 721
- R v McNaghten (1843) 8 ER 718
- R v Michaux [1984] 2 Qd R 159
- R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; (2005) 63 NSWLR 490
- R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
- R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
- R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697
- R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528
- Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573
- Taylor v R (1978) 45 FLR 343
- Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
- W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
- Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 200 CLR 234