Citation: R v Gourlay [2015] NSWSC 67
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 13 February 2015
Judge: Button J
Background
The accused, a 34-year-old man with a long history of schizophrenia and substance abuse, was charged with the murder of his father at the family home in Emu Plains on 24 October 2013. The accused had lived with his parents for several years, and his behaviour had become increasingly violent and erratic in the period before the offence. On the afternoon in question, following a confrontation over alcohol, he stabbed his father twice with a fishing knife. His father died shortly afterwards from severe internal bleeding caused by the wounds.
The accused elected, with the Crown's consent, to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). He pleaded not guilty on the ground of mental illness. Through formal admissions under s 184 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), he accepted that he had caused his father's death and that the entirety of the Crown case statement was correct.
Both the Crown and defence relied on expert psychiatric evidence. Two forensic psychiatrists, one retained by each side, delivered unanimous opinions regarding the accused's psychiatric state at the time of the offence.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt the physical act of killing and the mental element required for murder under s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- Whether the accused had established, on the balance of probabilities, the affirmative defence of mental illness under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) and the common law test derived from McNaghten's Case and The King v Porter.
- Specifically, whether the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind that caused a defect of reason such that he did not appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his act at the time of the killing.
Decision
Button J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the physical act of killing his father and that the elements of murder under s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) had been proven. The accused had formally admitted these facts, and both counsel agreed the Crown had discharged its burden.
His Honour then turned to the defence of mental illness. The test, drawn from McNaghten's Case and endorsed by the High Court in The King v Porter, asks whether the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind that produced a defect of reason, such that he did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not appreciate that what he was doing was morally wrong. The accused bore the onus of establishing this defence on the balance of probabilities.
Both forensic psychiatrists agreed that the accused was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offence, and that this constituted a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason. Their unanimous opinion was that, as a result of his delusional state, the accused did not appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his act when he stabbed his father. Button J accepted that unanimous expert evidence without reservation.
Accordingly, his Honour was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused had established the defence of mental illness, and returned a special verdict of not guilty on that ground. His Honour also took care to explain publicly that this verdict did not mean the accused's acts were without consequence: it meant the accused was not criminally responsible, but he would remain subject to indefinite detention under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal until determined not to be a danger to himself or others.
Orders Made
- A special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness was returned on the count of murder.
- The accused was ordered to be detained at Long Bay Hospital, or at such other place 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 of the judgment and order as soon as practicable.
- The Registrar was directed to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and provide it with a copy of the reasons for verdict and orders, a transcript of the proceedings, and copies of all exhibits tendered at trial.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court applied the established McNaghten test, as developed in Australia through The King v Porter, confirming that the mental illness defence requires proof on the balance of probabilities that a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason that prevented the accused from appreciating the moral wrongfulness of the act.
- Unanimous expert psychiatric evidence, where uncontested and consistent across both Crown and defence experts, carried significant weight in satisfying the court that the defence had been made out.
- A special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness is not an acquittal in the ordinary sense: it does not extinguish state intervention, as the accused remains subject to indefinite detention and oversight by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).
- Formal admissions under s 184 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) can streamline a trial by judge alone by resolving the factual elements of an offence without the need for witness evidence, allowing the court to focus on the contested legal issue.
- The decision illustrates the role of judge-alone trials in cases where the defence of mental illness is raised, with both parties here consenting to that mode of trial under s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132(2)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 165, 184
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39(1)
Cases
- McNaghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718
- The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
- Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205
- R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226
- R v Newbury [2012] NSWSC 1361