AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 6 December 2017

R v Briggs

[2017] NSWSC 1685

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCE MURDER MENTAL ILLNESS WHERE ACCUSED WAS SON OF THE DECEASED EVIDENCE OF PRE

Citation: R v Briggs [2017] NSWSC 1685
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 December 2017
Judge: Bellew J

Background

The accused, the adult son of the deceased, was charged with her murder following her death at their shared home in Forbes, New South Wales on 19 August 2016. He had called emergency services shortly after 6 am to report that he had killed her, and was located by police nearby. The cause of death was blunt force head injuries inflicted with bolt cutters, which were found at the scene.

The accused had a significant psychiatric history. In May 2000, aged 12, he suffered a serious head injury after falling through a shed roof onto concrete, sustaining a skull fracture. He had since developed a substance abuse disorder involving stimulants, cannabis and alcohol, and had been admitted to a mental health facility on two separate occasions in 2009 and 2010 with paranoia and persecutory delusions. In the period leading up to the offence, he had held persecutory beliefs involving a former friend and that person's family.

The accused elected to be tried by judge alone. The Crown tendered a bundle of evidence, including an agreed statement of facts and medical reports from two forensic psychiatrists, both of whom diagnosed the accused with schizophrenia. The evidence before Bellew J squarely raised the defence of mental illness.

  • Whether the accused satisfied the legal test for the defence of mental illness under the common law (derived from R v M'Naghten (1843) and R v Porter (1933))
  • Specifically, whether the accused, at the time of the killing, did not know that what he was doing was wrong, having regard to the everyday standards of reasonable people
  • Whether that defence was established on the balance of probabilities, the onus resting on the accused

Decision

Bellew J found the defence of mental illness established on the balance of probabilities and returned a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness.

Both forensic psychiatrists, Dr Martin (retained by the defence) and Dr Eagle (retained by the Crown), diagnosed the accused with schizophrenia. Medical opinion attributed his condition to a combination of factors: the acquired vulnerability from the 2000 head injury, long-term substance abuse that exacerbated his psychotic illness and reduced the effectiveness of treatment, and longstanding persecutory beliefs. Dr Eagle noted a possible cognitive impairment arising from the head injury, and both experts treated the psychiatric illness as chronic rather than transient.

Applying the test articulated by Dixon J in R v Porter, Bellew J was satisfied that at the time of the killing the accused was suffering from delusional thinking that rendered him incapable of reasoning about the wrongfulness of his actions. The accused's impairments included a defect in his capacity to reason, paranoid delusions, irrational thought processes, hallucinations, and significant mood disturbance. His statement to attending police that he acted because of "the voices in my head" was consistent with the medical evidence.

His Honour noted that the accused's explanation to police and his call to emergency services did not, in themselves, demonstrate that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct in the legally relevant sense. The court was satisfied, on the totality of the evidence, that the M'Naghten standard was met.

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, and to provide each with a copy of the transcript, the exhibits, and the judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • The defence of mental illness in New South Wales requires the accused to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that at the time of the act they did not know what they were doing was wrong by reference to the everyday standards of reasonable people, following the test in R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182.
  • A verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness does not result in an acquittal and 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.
  • Concurrent diagnoses of schizophrenia from both the defence and Crown psychiatrists were central to the court's satisfaction that the legal standard was met, underscoring the significance of expert agreement in mental illness defences.
  • Where an accused has a history of psychiatric hospitalisation, persecutory delusions, and long-term substance abuse that exacerbates an underlying psychotic illness, those cumulative factors may together satisfy the evidentiary foundation for a mental illness defence.
  • In a judge-alone trial, s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 requires the trial judge to expose the reasoning process by linking the relevant legal principles to the facts as found.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 39

Cases
- R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
- R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
- R v Lazarus [2017] NSWCCA 279
- Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659
- R v Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
- R v Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511
- R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490
- R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1