AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 22 October 2020

R v Francis

[2020] NSWDC 635

Assault & violence
TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE SCHIZOPHRENIA

Citation: R v Francis [2020] NSWDC 635
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 October 2020
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

In the early morning of 5 September 2019, a 53-year-old café proprietor in Bega was struck on the head with a claw hammer by the defendant, a 25-year-old man who entered her coffee shop without warning. The first blow struck her near the right ear and jaw, causing a laceration. Further blows followed before three customers wrestled the defendant to the ground. The complainant sustained bruising to her head, neck and back, required suturing, and was left with lasting nerve damage affecting her right eye and ongoing headaches.

The defendant was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. He was refused bail and remanded in custody, where he remained until trial. He had a significant psychiatric history, including diagnoses consistent with autistic spectrum disorder and, ultimately, schizophrenia, and had previously been the subject of involuntary scheduling under the Mental Health Act 2007.

The matter proceeded as a judge-alone trial with the defendant's consent and without Crown opposition. Both prosecution and defence accepted, on the basis of expert forensic psychiatric reports, that the defendant had committed the act and had the relevant intent, but that the special defence of mental illness was available.

  • Whether the defendant was "mentally ill, so as not to be responsible, according to law" for his actions at the time of the offence, within the meaning of s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
  • Whether the test established in M'Naghten's Case, as elaborated by Australian authority, was satisfied: specifically, whether the defendant suffered from a disease of the mind that meant he either did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not know that what he was doing was wrong by ordinary standards.
  • What orders should follow upon a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court accepted that, while the defendant physically committed the attack and formed the relevant intent, the applicable legal test was whether a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason such that he did not know what he was doing was wrong by ordinary standards. Two forensic psychiatrists, one retained by each party, agreed that the defence was established.

The court directed itself, as it would direct a jury, on the requirements of s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 and the M'Naghten principles as refined in Porter, Sodeman, and Stapleton. The relevant inquiry was the defendant's mental state at the time of the act, with evidence of his mental state before and after the offence considered only insofar as it illuminated that question.

The court noted that the defendant's own account to the examining psychiatrist acknowledged awareness that what he was doing was wrong, yet the expert evidence established that his schizophrenia, long-standing, treatment-resistant, and unmedicated at the relevant time, rendered him legally not responsible. His history of involuntary admissions, prior disordered behaviour, and the garbled, irrational conduct observed by witnesses at the scene were consistent with that finding.

The court was careful to explain that a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is not a complete acquittal. It does not diminish the harm suffered by the complainant. The defendant's ongoing detention and any future release are subject to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which cannot release him unless satisfied he will not seriously endanger himself or others.

Orders Made

  • The defendant is to continue to be detained in custody, preferably at the Hamden Unit or Long Bay Hospital, or at such place as 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 the orders made.
  • The Registrar must notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and Justice Health, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the terms of the judgment and the orders made, and provide those bodies with a copy of the reasons for verdict, the orders, and all 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 is not a complete acquittal: it does not extinguish criminal liability in the ordinary sense, but reflects that the defendant was not legally responsible at the time of the act.
  • Under the M'Naghten test as applied in New South Wales, the critical question is whether a disease of the mind produced a defect of reason such that the defendant either did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know it was wrong by ordinary standards. A defendant's own awareness that conduct was "wrong" does not automatically defeat the defence if the expert evidence establishes the requisite incapacity.
  • Where both prosecution and defence forensic psychiatrists agree that the mental illness defence is established, a judge-alone trial may proceed and the court may enter the special verdict without the need for a contested hearing, though the court must still reach its own independent conclusion.
  • Following a special verdict, ongoing detention and any conditions of release fall within the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Review Tribunal under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The Tribunal cannot authorise release unless satisfied the defendant will not seriously endanger any person, including himself.
  • A defendant's lengthy psychiatric history, prior involuntary admissions, and the observable irrationality of his conduct at the time of the offence are all relevant to establishing the mental state required for the special verdict, even in the absence of formal admission to hospital immediately before or after the act.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(a)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39, 40, 43
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 365
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)

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