Citation: R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 May 2014
Judge: Hidden J
Background
The accused was a 28-year-old man with significant neurological and psychiatric conditions, including neurofibromatosis, temporal lobe epilepsy, cognitive impairment consistent with mild intellectual disability, and a history of post-ictal psychosis. He had lived with his parents and older brother at a family home in western Sydney. His history included recurrent seizures, hospitalisation following aggressive episodes, and persistent delusional symptoms including hearing voices and speaking of spirits.
On the evening of 6 September 2012, the accused became agitated at the family home, shouting that his deceased grandmother was speaking to him and that people were trying to kill him. He retrieved an ornamental samurai-style sword from his bedroom. Despite his mother's efforts to calm him, he stabbed her multiple times. She died from her wounds. His brother was injured while attempting to intervene and disarm him.
The accused was charged with murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (later amended to reckless wounding). He was tried before Hidden J sitting without a jury. The sole issue at trial was whether the accused had established the defence of mental illness.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused had established the defence of mental illness at the time of both offences
- Specifically, whether his mental state at the time of the offences was such that he did not know the nature and quality of his actions, or did not know that what he was doing was wrong
- Whether the mental illness defence, if made out in respect of the killing, extended also to the wounding of his brother
Decision
Hidden J accepted the evidence of the psychiatric experts, including Dr Richard Westmore, who diagnosed the accused as suffering from post-ictal psychosis at the time of the offences. The judge found that this condition, arising from the accused's intractable epilepsy, had prevented him from reasoning about his actions with any moderate degree of sense and composure, consistent with the test established in The King v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182.
The judge was not persuaded that the accused was entirely unaware of his actions at the relevant time. However, His Honour was satisfied that the accused did not know that what he was doing was wrong, which was sufficient to establish the defence.
In relation to the reckless wounding of the accused's brother, the judge found that this conduct was an inextricable part of the same incident and was affected by the same disordered state of mind. The Crown prosecutor accepted that the defence was made out on both charges. The judge also noted the absence of any rational motive for the accused to harm his mother, observing that she had been his primary carer and supporter throughout his life, and that the accused had expressed ongoing grief about her death.
Orders Made
- The accused was directed to be detained at Parklea Correctional Centre, or such other place as directed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- The defence of mental illness was established where post-ictal psychosis, arising from intractable epilepsy, prevented the accused from knowing that his actions were wrong, even if he had some awareness of the actions themselves.
- A finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not require proof that the accused was entirely unaware of his physical actions; it is sufficient that the mental illness prevented the accused from reasoning with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the wrongfulness of the conduct.
- Where a second charge arises from conduct that is inextricably connected to the principal offending and is affected by the same mental state, the mental illness defence can apply to both charges without separate expert analysis directed specifically at each charge.
- The absence of any rational motive to harm a victim can be a relevant and reinforcing consideration in assessing whether the mental illness defence has been made out.
- A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in the accused's release; the court is required to make a consequential detention order, with the accused's ongoing management determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- The King v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182
- R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490; 154 A Crim R 349
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
- R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
Legislation: No specific legislation was identified in the provided text.