Citation: R v Ambrosius [2018] NSWSC 1318
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 31 August 2018
Judge: R A Hulme J
Background
The offender, a 50-year-old man with a long history of schizophrenia, had been staying temporarily at his mother and step-father's home on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. He had not taken his antipsychotic medication (Risperidone) for six weeks before the events in question, and his behaviour had become noticeably erratic in the days leading up to the offence.
On 9 March 2016, a confrontation occurred on the back veranda of the home. The step-father, aged 74, moved the chair on which the offender was sitting, causing him to fall. The offender, whose perception of reality was substantially impaired by his untreated schizophrenia, believed he was being attacked. A physical struggle followed, and the offender propelled the step-father over the balcony railing, causing spinal injuries that were instantaneously fatal.
Later that afternoon, police located the offender at a nearby park. During his apprehension, he struggled with officers and dug his fingernails into a senior constable's forearm, causing a laceration. He asked that this assault offence be taken into account during sentencing for the manslaughter.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence, where the offender's capacity was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from schizophrenia?
- How should the offender's mental illness bear on moral culpability and the purposes of sentencing?
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying a reduction in the non-parole period below the statutory norm.
- What weight should be given to future dangerousness and prospects of rehabilitation?
- What discount applied for the offender's plea of guilty?
Decision
Hulme J accepted that the agreed facts established manslaughter by excessive self-defence under s 421(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offender genuinely believed the force he used was necessary for self-defence, but that belief was not objectively reasonable given the circumstances as he perceived them. The substantial impairment of his mental capacity under s 23A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act was also established by agreement between the parties.
The judge found that the offender's schizophrenia significantly reduced his moral culpability, though it did not eliminate it entirely. His deteriorated mental state at the time of the offence was directly linked to his failure to take prescribed medication, which had caused his perception of reality to break down. Both forensic psychiatrists agreed that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation depended on sustained supervision and compliance with a treatment plan in the community. Hulme J described those prospects as "guarded."
His Honour declined to increase the sentence on the basis of future dangerousness, noting that the State Parole Authority would be responsible for imposing appropriate conditions before release. The long-term supervision the offender required was likely to extend beyond any sentence the court could impose. Hulme J found that special circumstances existed within the meaning of s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), justifying a non-parole period shorter than the standard ratio. This reflected the offender's need for an extended period of supervised parole to manage his mental health.
The offender's prior record was minimal given his age and the chronicity of his illness, and the Crown conceded he was a person of good character in the relevant sense. A 15 per cent discount was applied for the plea of guilty.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of manslaughter and the assault offence was taken into account on sentence.
- Total sentence of 6 years 9 months imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months and a balance of term of 3 years 3 months.
- Sentence backdated to commence 9 March 2016, with eligibility for parole on 8 September 2019.
- Without the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been 8 years.
- The offender was to be advised of the existence and potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW).
Key Takeaways
- Where an offender's mental illness substantially impairs their capacity to understand events, judge right from wrong, or control their conduct, that impairment can ground both a partial defence to murder (reducing the charge to manslaughter) and a significant reduction in moral culpability at sentence.
- Manslaughter by excessive self-defence under s 421(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies where an offender honestly but unreasonably believed their conduct was necessary for self-defence.
- Special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) may be established where an offender with a serious mental illness requires a longer-than-standard parole period to achieve adequate community supervision and mental health management.
- Future dangerousness does not, of itself, warrant a sentence above the otherwise proportionate range; the State Parole Authority's role in managing release conditions is a relevant consideration in that assessment.
- Under s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), a sentencing court is obliged to ensure that an offender convicted of a relevant offence is made aware of that Act and its potential application to them.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 23A(1)(a) (substantial impairment by abnormality of mind), 421(2) (excessive self-defence)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(2) (special circumstances and non-parole period)
Cases: No cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.