Citation: R v Benhima [2020] NSWDC 818
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 October 2020
Judge(s): Norrish QC DCJ
Background
The accused was charged with wounding the complainant with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The alleged offending occurred in the early hours of 18 July 2019 at a flat in Austinmer, where the complainant, a friend of roughly one week, had fallen asleep in the accused's bed. He woke to find he had been stabbed, sustaining three penetrating wounds to his chest and back, a small pneumothorax, and a rib fracture.
The accused, a woman in her mid-thirties, had carried a confirmed diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia for approximately ten years before the incident. She had no prior history of violence. Police arrested her at the scene shortly after 5:30 am and body camera footage captured her distressed, restless, and at times incoherent presentation.
Because the accused was found unfit to be tried on 22 June 2020, and the Mental Health Review Tribunal subsequently concluded she would remain unfit for at least twelve months, the matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and proceeded as a "special hearing" under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. No oral evidence was called; the court decided the matter on documentary evidence and recorded footage.
Legal Issues
- Whether the facts of the wounding were established to the relevant standard in a special hearing
- Whether the accused had made out the mental illness defence under the M'Naghten test, namely that at the time of the acts she was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of her acts, or if she did know, that she did not know what she was doing was wrong
- Whether, given the mental illness defence was established, the court was required to make a separate finding on specific intent
Decision
Issue 1: The facts of the wounding
The court found, without dispute, that the accused inflicted three wounds on the complainant as he lay in her bed in the early hours of 18 July 2019 (at [31]). The essential facts relating to the wounding were not contested by either party (at [6]).
Issue 2: The mental illness defence
Both forensic psychiatrists, Dr Eagle (retained by the Crown) and Dr Furst (retained by the defence), agreed that the mental illness defence was available to the accused (at [7]). Dr Eagle concluded that the accused was experiencing an episode of acute psychosis at the time of the assault, which prevented her from reliably interpreting reality, and that she did not know what she was doing was wrong (at [22]). Dr Furst concluded that the accused's behaviour was driven by delusional beliefs and that she was unable to reason about the wrongfulness of her actions according to ordinary standards (at [24]).
Norrish QC DCJ accepted both opinions as overwhelmingly supported by the accused's long psychiatric history, her presentation at arrest as captured on body camera footage, and the context in which the offending occurred. The court found that the accused suffered a defect of reason because of a disease of the mind and did not know what she was doing was wrong at the time of the wounding (at [32]). The defence was established on the balance of probabilities (at [32]).
Issue 3: Specific intent
Applying the reasoning in Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500 as discussed in R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226, the court noted that once the mental illness defence is established, it is unnecessary to make a separate finding on the question of specific intent (at [29]). The Crown also submitted that, to the extent any drug use may have contributed to the accused's conduct, the underlying disease of the mind was nonetheless present and active at the time (at [27]).
Orders Made
- Not guilty on the ground of mental illness (pursuant to s 22(1)(b), Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990)
Key Takeaways
- Under the M'Naghten test, as applied in New South Wales, the mental illness defence is established where an accused proves on the balance of probabilities that, because of a disease of the mind, she did not know that what she was doing was wrong at the time of the relevant acts (at [30], [32]).
- Where the mental illness defence is made out, the court is not required to make a separate finding on specific intent, following the High Court's reasoning in Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500 (at [29]).
- A special hearing under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 may proceed entirely on documentary evidence and recorded material, without oral testimony, where the parties agree to that course (at [5]).
- Unanimous expert psychiatric evidence, strongly corroborated by an accused's documented psychiatric history and observable presentation at the time of arrest, will carry significant weight in establishing the mental illness defence (at [32]).
- Even where evidence of drug use exists alongside a chronic psychotic illness, the court may still be satisfied that the underlying disease of the mind was the operative cause of the offending conduct, particularly where both experts decline to attribute the conduct to substance use (at [27]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 ,
Cases
- Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500
- M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 8 ER 718
- R v Kirkman [2019] NSW SC 1826
- R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226
- R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182