Citation: R v Bellette [2019] NSWDC 525
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 23 July 2019
Judge: Grant DCJ
Background
The accused was a resident at a special accommodation unit in Berkshire Park. He had significant mental health issues, including treatment-resistant schizophrenia, complicated by substance abuse disorder and intellectual disability. On 3 October 2017, a fire broke out in his bedroom, damaging a two-seater couch and part of the dwelling.
In October 2018, the court found the accused unfit to be tried. The Mental Health Review Tribunal subsequently determined that he was unlikely to become fit within 12 months. The Director of Public Prosecutions then gave notice of an intention to proceed, triggering a statutory "special hearing" under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
The sole charge was intentionally damaging property by fire, contrary to section 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The parties did not dispute that a fire occurred on the date and at the place alleged. The only contested question was whether the accused intentionally caused it.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally lit the fire, rather than the fire having occurred accidentally
- Whether, on the circumstantial evidence available, the only reasonable inference was that the accused was guilty of the offence charged
Decision
Nature of the special hearing: A special hearing under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 is conducted as nearly as possible as if it were a criminal trial, with the accused taken to have pleaded not guilty. The accused is acquitted unless it can be proved to the criminal standard, on the limited evidence available, that he committed the offence charged. No jury election was made, so the matter proceeded as a judge-alone hearing (at [4]-[6]).
The Crown's circumstantial case: The Crown relied on a combination of circumstances: the accused's heightened anxiety about his impending removal from the facility, his agitation following a refusal of coffee shortly before the fire, his utterances about ISIS and wanting to return to gaol, his holding of his bedroom door to prevent entry, and his apparent disposal of an ignition source outside (at [20]-[21]). The court accepted that these were established facts but found they did not compel a single inference of guilt.
Applying the reasonable doubt standard: The court held that each circumstance relied upon by the Crown was also consistent with the fire having been accidental. The accused's anxiety and agitation were explicable by his mental illness. His holding of the door and subsequent behaviour were consistent with concern about punishment for an accidental fire. His utterances were consistent with the mumblings of a mentally disturbed person rather than admissions to deliberate conduct. The court emphasised that the accused's actions had to be assessed through the lens of a person with severe mental illness, not by reference to objective logic (at [25]-[30]).
Outcome: The court held that a reasonable conclusion, open on all the evidence viewed as a whole, was that the fire was accidental. Accordingly, it was not satisfied that the only reasonable inference was that the fire was intentionally lit. The court expressly acknowledged a strong suspicion of guilt but held that strong suspicion, even a very strong one, falls short of proof beyond reasonable doubt (at [31]-[32]).
Orders Made
- Pursuant to section 22(1)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.
Key Takeaways
- Under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, where a person is found unfit to be tried and the DPP elects to proceed, the court must conduct a special hearing as nearly as possible to a criminal trial, and the accused is acquitted unless the Crown proves guilt to the criminal standard on the available evidence (at [3]-[4]).
- A special hearing does not lower the standard of proof: the Crown must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a strong suspicion of guilt, even an acknowledged one, is insufficient to sustain a finding that the accused committed the offence (at [23], [31]).
- In a circumstantial case, the Crown must establish that the only reasonable inference from all the evidence is guilt; where an alternative inference consistent with innocence remains reasonably open, the case fails (at [24]).
- The District Court found that the accused's behaviour before and after the fire, including his agitation, his utterances, and his actions at the door, were each explicable by his severe mental illness and were consistent with an accidental fire rather than a deliberate one (at [25]-[29]).
- Where an accused has significant mental illness, the court assessed his conduct and statements through that prism rather than by applying ordinary objective reasoning, and this approach directly affected whether the Crown's inferences could be drawn (at [27]-[28]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Not stated
Cases
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990