Citation: R v Delaney (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 610
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 October 2020
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ
Background
The accused was charged with wounding his father with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. The incident occurred on 30 November 2019 at a unit in Fairy Meadow, where the accused stabbed his father repeatedly after the father arrived to deliver groceries. The father sustained over 20 lacerations across his chest, shoulders, neck, and face. After his father fled, the accused stabbed himself in the chest and subsequently fell into a coma before being arrested at hospital.
The accused had been in custody since the date of the incident, initially at St George Hospital and then at Long Bay Prison Hospital. A fitness-to-be-tried question delayed proceedings, but by 9 October 2020 that issue was resolved in a separate judgment. The matter then proceeded as a judge-alone trial by agreement between the parties.
Both the prosecution and defence took the position that the accused was not guilty by reason of mental illness. That position was supported by expert opinion from two forensic psychiatrists. The court was required to reach its own independent conclusion.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was mentally ill at the time of the offence so as to not be responsible according to law, within the meaning of s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
- Whether the accused satisfied the M'Naghten test, specifically whether, due to a disease of the mind, he did not know that his actions were wrong according to the ordinary standards of reasonable people
- What orders should follow a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness
Decision
Haesler SC DCJ entered a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused was suffering from a severe, chronic, and treatment-resistant schizophrenic illness at the time of the stabbing. Both forensic psychiatrists agreed that the accused was experiencing acute and overwhelming psychotic symptoms, including paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations involving multiple commanding voices.
The court applied the M'Naghten test as refined by the High Court in cases including The Queen v Porter and Stapleton v The Queen. The relevant question under the second limb of that test is whether the accused, due to a disease, disorder, or disturbance of the mind, was unable to reason about whether his act was right or wrong with a moderate degree of sense and composure. The court found the accused was completely unable to appreciate the wrongness of his actions by ordinary standards, and that he felt compelled to act on the voices he was hearing.
The court emphasised that a special verdict of this kind is not a complete acquittal. The accused was not to be released into the community but would instead be committed to the long-term care and control of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Under s 43(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the Tribunal cannot release the accused unless it is satisfied he will not seriously endanger himself or any other person. The court noted that while the accused had responded well to treatment, he still posed a danger to the community in the absence of a clear treatment plan and stable accommodation.
Orders Made
- The accused is to continue to be detained at Long Bay Prison Hospital, or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- The Registrar must notify the Minister for Health, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the terms of the judgment and orders.
- The Registrar must notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and Justice Health, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the terms of the judgment and orders, and provide both bodies with a copy of the reasons for verdict and the exhibits tendered at trial.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 requires the defendant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a disease of the mind rendered them unable to know their act was wrong by ordinary community standards.
- Under the M'Naghten test as applied in New South Wales, the defence is established not only where the accused had no knowledge of the wrongness of the act, but also where a disordered mental condition prevented reasoning about right and wrong with a moderate degree of sense and composure.
- A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is not a complete acquittal: the accused is committed to the oversight of the Mental Health Review Tribunal rather than being released into the community.
- Where both parties' forensic psychiatrists agree that the mental illness defence is available, the court is not bound by that agreement and must reach its own independent conclusion on the evidence.
- Detention following such a verdict continues until the Mental Health Review Tribunal is satisfied that release will not seriously endanger the accused or any other person, consistent with s 43(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39, 43
Cases
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718
- The Queen v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
- Sodeman v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 192
- Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358
- Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205
- The Queen v Lucas (1970) 120 CLR 171
- Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500
- R v Issa, NSWSC, unreported 25 October 1995
- R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- Fang v R [2018] NSWCCA 210; (2018) 97 NSWLR 876
- R v Kirkman [2019] NSWSC 1826
- R v Delaney [2020] NSWDC 609 (companion fitness-to-be-tried judgment)