AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 9 April 2015

R v Waters

[2015] NSWSC 235

Homicide
MURDER JUDGE ALONE TRIAL DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS SPECIAL VERDICT

Citation: R v Waters [2015] NSWSC 235
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 April 2015
Judge: Mathews AJ

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of her mother at Medlow Bath in the Blue Mountains on 13 September 2013. The accused had a lengthy history of serious mental illness, including a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and had experienced multiple psychiatric admissions since 2002.

On the morning of the offence, the accused travelled by train to her mother's home to drop off her dogs before a supervised visit with her infant daughter, who had been removed by the Department of Family and Community Services. She missed the connecting train and returned to her mother's home, where an argument developed. She smothered her mother with a pillow. The deceased died at the scene.

The trial proceeded before a judge alone, by consent. Both the Crown and the defence relied on documentary evidence only, including a statement of agreed facts and two expert psychiatric reports. Both parties submitted that the appropriate verdict was not guilty on the ground of mental illness.

  • Whether the accused satisfied the test for the defence of mental illness under the M'Naghten rules as applied in New South Wales.
  • Specifically, whether the accused was suffering from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind such that she did not know the nature and quality of her act, or did not know that what she was doing was wrong.
  • Whether a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness was the only appropriate verdict on the evidence.

Decision

Mathews AJ was satisfied, on the evidence, that the accused did kill the deceased. The factual basis for the killing was not in dispute.

The central question was whether the defence of mental illness was established. The M'Naghten rules, long adopted in New South Wales (confirmed in The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR and Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR), require that a defendant, at the time of the act, was suffering from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind, such that she either did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know that the act was wrong.

The expert psychiatric evidence, including two reports from forensic psychiatrist Dr Richard Furst, established that the accused was acutely psychotic at the time of the offence. Her condition had deteriorated markedly in the days immediately preceding the killing. She had been hearing voices, experiencing paranoid delusions, and engaging in a series of bizarre behaviours in the 72 hours before the death. Mathews AJ was satisfied that the accused did not know that what she was doing was wrong at the time of the killing.

Given that both parties were in agreement and the evidence firmly supported only one conclusion, her Honour entered the special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness.

Orders Made

  • The accused is to be detained at the Step Down Unit at Silverwater Correctional Centre, or such other place as determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
  • The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Minister for Health of the judgment and orders.
  • The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the judgment and orders, and provide the Tribunal with a copy of the reasons for verdict, a transcript of the proceedings, and copies of all exhibits tendered at the hearing.

Key Takeaways

  • A special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness requires the court to be satisfied that, at the time of the act, the accused suffered a defect of reason from a disease of the mind and either did not understand the nature and quality of the act or did not know it was wrong, applying the long-standing M'Naghten rules as confirmed in Australian law.
  • Such a verdict does not constitute an acquittal in the conventional sense. The Supreme Court made clear that a finding of not guilty on the ground of mental illness involves a positive finding that the accused did commit the act, while holding that she cannot be criminally responsible due to the severity of her mental illness at the time.
  • Where both Crown and defence agree that a special verdict is the only appropriate outcome and the evidence supports that conclusion, a judge-alone trial may proceed entirely on documentary material, including agreed facts and expert reports, without any oral evidence being called.
  • Under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, a person who receives a special verdict is not released into the community. Instead, her case is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which reviews her situation on an ongoing basis and may only authorise release if satisfied that release would not seriously endanger the safety of herself or any member of the public.
  • Acute psychotic symptoms immediately preceding and at the time of an offence, including auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions documented by forensic psychiatric evidence, can form the evidentiary foundation for a successful mental illness defence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132(2)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 37

Cases:
- R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER (the foundational statement of the mental illness defence)
- The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR (Australian adoption and elaboration of the M'Naghten rules)
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR (High Court consideration of the mental illness defence)
- R v Newbury [2012] NSWSC 1361 (NSW Supreme Court application of the defence)