Citation: R v Anderson [2017] NSWDC 148
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 May 2017
Judge: Hatzistergos DCJ
Background
The accused, a young man aged 18 to 19 at the time of the offences, was charged with three counts arising from an incident on 22 January 2016 at Oatlands, NSW. The complainants were his own parents. The charges were: wounding his father with intent to murder (Count 1); wounding his father with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (the alternative to Count 1); and wounding his mother with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Count 3).
The accused had a documented history of mental health difficulties dating from around 2011, including episodes of self-harm and other concerning behaviour. He had received treatment from both a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and had been placed on anti-depressant medication. In the period leading up to the offences, he had been experiencing significant personal and psychological difficulties.
The accused elected a judge-alone trial under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), with the Crown's consent. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and raised the defence of mental illness. It was not in dispute that the acts themselves were voluntary; the sole issue was whether the accused was criminally responsible for those acts.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offences sufficient to ground the defence of mental illness under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
- Whether the accused knew his actions were morally wrong at the time he committed them
- Whether the Crown had proven the essential elements of each charge beyond reasonable doubt
- What orders should follow upon a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness
Decision
The accused bore the onus of establishing the mental illness defence on the balance of probabilities. The psychiatric evidence was not contested by either party. That uncontested expert evidence established that the accused did not know his actions were morally wrong at the time of the offences.
Hatzistergos DCJ accepted the psychiatric evidence and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was mentally ill at the time of each offence within the meaning of the relevant statutory test. Because the accused did not know his actions were morally wrong, the mental illness defence was made out on all three counts.
The court entered special verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness on all three charges, including both Count 1 (wounding with intent to murder) and its alternative. His Honour noted that where special verdicts of this kind are entered, the community should understand their practical effect: the accused is not simply released, but is detained and subject to ongoing oversight by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Any future release would occur only through due process of law, and conditions may be imposed. A breach of those conditions, or a deterioration in the accused's mental state posing serious danger to others, may result in further detention.
His Honour concluded the judgment by acknowledging the accused's parents and family, who had supported the accused through difficult circumstances before becoming the victims of his actions, and recognised the work of NSW Police and others who responded to the incident.
Orders Made
- The accused is to be detained in a correctional centre or such place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law (pursuant to s 39(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW))
- The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Minister for Health of the terms of the order as soon as practicable
- The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the order as soon as practicable, and provide the Tribunal with: a copy of the reasons for the verdicts and orders; the trial transcript; and the exhibits tendered at trial
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that where the defence of mental illness is raised, the onus shifts to the accused to prove that defence on the balance of probabilities, which is an exception to the general rule that the Crown bears the onus throughout.
- A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. Under s 39(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), the accused is detained and subject to the ongoing jurisdiction of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- Where expert psychiatric evidence is uncontested by both parties, a court trying the matter alone may accept that evidence as establishing the mental illness defence without the need for cross-examination or competing expert opinion.
- The critical question in a mental illness defence is not merely whether the accused was mentally unwell, but whether, as a result of that illness, the accused did not know that their actions were morally wrong at the time they were committed.
- In judge-alone trials under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the judge is required to set out the principles of law applied and the findings of fact made, standing in place of the jury and taking into account any warnings that would otherwise have been given to a jury.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 27 and 33(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132 and 133
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 177
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 37, 38 and 39
Cases
- AK v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8
- Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50
- Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- Mizzi v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 659
- R v Minani (2005) 154 A Crim R 349; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- R v PCB [2012] NSWSC 482
- R v Rodriguez [2010] NSWSC 198
- R v Settree (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1079
- R v Smith (1837) 8 C & P 173
- R v Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351