Citation: R v Hadler (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1804
Court: Supreme Court of NSW
Date: 23 November 2018
Judge: Wilson J
Background
In the early hours of 23 September 2016, Brian Hamilton was fatally stabbed multiple times at a shared residential property in Bass Hill. The accused, a co-tenant who paid rent to the deceased, walked into Bankstown Police Station later that same day and confessed to the killing. He was subsequently charged with murder.
When arraigned in May 2018, the accused entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The trial proceeded before Wilson J sitting without a jury, following an earlier order under s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) dispensing with a jury.
There was no dispute that the accused had killed the deceased. The only issues for the Court were whether the mental illness defence was established and, if not, whether the partial defence of substantial impairment could be made out.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness, specifically schizophrenia, at the time of the killing that deprived him of the capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong
- Whether prior consumption of cannabis on the night in question was relevant to, or undermined, the mental illness defence
- Whether steps taken by the accused after the killing, including concealing bloodied clothing and a knife and later confessing, indicated sufficient forensic awareness to defeat the defence
- Whether the partial defence of substantial impairment arose for consideration
Decision
Expert witnesses unanimously agreed that the accused suffered from schizophrenia and was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing. Wilson J accepted this evidence. The accused's delusional thinking led him to believe the deceased posed a serious threat to himself and his son, and he acted on that belief.
On the question of cannabis use, the Court examined whether the consumption of illicit drugs contributed to or caused the psychotic episode. The Court's reasoning accepted that the accused's underlying schizophrenia was the operative cause of his psychosis, rather than the cannabis itself, a conclusion consistent with expert opinion.
The Court gave careful consideration to the accused's post-offence conduct. He had showered, concealed bloodied clothing and the knife, accompanied a housemate to a bus stop behaving normally, and later confessed to police. Wilson J acknowledged this conduct suggested some awareness that the killing would be treated as a crime. However, the Court was persuaded that this degree of forensic awareness did not amount to an understanding of the moral wrongfulness of the act. In his deluded state, the accused believed he was morally justified in killing the deceased to protect himself and his son. As the Court summarised, the accused probably understood that killing was a crime and that he would face consequences, but he could not reason about moral wrongfulness in circumstances where he wrongly believed the deceased threatened his safety.
Accordingly, Wilson J returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The partial defence of substantial impairment did not require consideration.
Orders Made
- Special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness returned in respect of the murder charge, pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
- The accused to be detained in a correctional facility, or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law, pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
- The Registrar directed to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and orders, and to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the reasons, orders, and nominated trial exhibits
Key Takeaways
- The mental illness defence under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) requires that, at the time of the act, the accused did not know the act was wrong. The Supreme Court confirmed this encompasses the inability to reason about moral wrongfulness, not merely an absence of legal knowledge.
- Prior consumption of cannabis does not automatically disqualify an accused from relying on the mental illness defence where the underlying psychosis is attributable to a diagnosable mental illness such as schizophrenia rather than to the drug use itself.
- Post-offence conduct indicating forensic awareness, such as concealing evidence or subsequently confessing, does not necessarily defeat the mental illness defence. The court considered such conduct but found it did not demonstrate that the accused understood the moral wrongfulness of the killing in his deluded state.
- Unanimous expert agreement on the availability of the mental illness defence was a significant feature of the court's reasoning, though the ultimate determination remained a question for the Court.
- Where a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is returned, detention follows under s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), subject to ongoing review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases
- Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
- Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500
- McNaghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718
- R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
- R v Hadler [2018] NSWSC 1151 (earlier procedural decision in same matter)
- R v Jenkins [1964] NSWR 721
- R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157
- R v Michaux [1984] 2 Qd R 159
- Radford v R (1985) 42 SASR 266
- Steer v R (2008) 191 A Crim R 435
- Taylor v R (1978) 45 FLR 343
- The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
- Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149