AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 27 August 2020

R v Franklin

[2020] NSWSC 1134

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIMINAL LAW SPECIAL HEARING CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE TRANSACTIONAL EVIDENCE POWERFUL CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED

Citation: R v Franklin [2020] NSWSC 1134
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 August 2020
Judge: Button J

Background

The accused, a 38-year-old man with a long-standing and severe diagnosis of schizophrenia, was found unfit to stand trial. As a result, proceedings before Button J at Orange took the form of a "special hearing" under the Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1900 (NSW), replicating a judge-alone trial to the extent reasonably practicable. Neither the Crown nor the accused elected for the matter to be determined by a jury. Three pleas of not guilty were entered by the judge on the accused's behalf.

The indictment contained three counts arising from events on 5 June 2017 in Parkes, NSW. The first count alleged murder of an elderly, frail resident (the deceased) who lived in the unit directly above the accused in a public housing block. The second and third counts alleged intentional damage by fire to the deceased's unit and the accused's own unit respectively. The Crown's case on each count was entirely circumstantial.

The accused's mental state had been deteriorating in the days leading up to the events. He was subject to a community treatment order and receiving mental health support at the time. The defence strongly contested that the accused had committed the fatal assault, while conceding it was open to the court to find that the accused had lit the fire in his own apartment. Both parties jointly submitted that, if the physical elements of any count were established, a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness was appropriate.

  • Whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt the physical elements of each count (murder and two counts of arson) in a special hearing context, where proof of mental elements was not required given the mental illness defence
  • Whether, if the physical elements were established, the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind at the relevant time such that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, warranting a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness
  • How a wholly circumstantial case should be assessed, including whether alternative hypotheses could be excluded beyond reasonable doubt

Decision

Button J conducted a detailed analysis of a substantial body of circumstantial evidence. The Crown relied on several interlocking circumstances: the accused's markedly deteriorating mental state in the days before the offences; his proximity to and regular contact with the deceased; a diary kept by the deceased recording outstanding loans to the accused; and the discovery of the accused's keycard in the deceased's apartment. Further circumstances included forensic and CCTV evidence, the accused's behaviour immediately after the events, and what the judge described as "transactional evidence" connecting the accused to the scenes.

The court found the Crown's circumstantial case to be powerful. Button J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that alternative hypotheses were excluded and that the accused had committed the physical acts constituting each of the three counts. The judge was alert to the need for caution in a purely circumstantial case, in accordance with principles from Hawkins v The Queen and R v Minani, but concluded that the evidence compelled the relevant findings.

On the question of mental illness, the evidence from forensic psychiatrists was described as unanimous and overwhelming. All experts agreed that, if the accused had committed any of the charged acts, he was at the time suffering from a disease of the mind that gave rise to a defect of reason such that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. This position, applying the test established in R v M'Naghten, was accepted by both parties. Button J accepted that expert evidence and returned special verdicts of not guilty on the ground of mental illness on all three counts.

The judge concluded his reasons with acknowledgment of the profound grief suffered by the deceased's family and loved ones, and expressed the Court's condolences. He noted that the legal process had taken over three years, and expressed hope that the conclusion of proceedings might provide some measure of relief.

Orders Made

  • The accused is to be detained at such 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 those bodies with: a copy of the reasons for verdict and orders; a transcript of proceedings; a copy of exhibits tendered at trial; and a copy of the victim impact statements.

Key Takeaways

  • A special hearing under the Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1900 (NSW) replicates a judge-alone trial to the extent reasonably practicable, but requires the court to determine only the physical elements of the charged offences where the defence of mental illness has been raised.
  • Where the defence of mental illness is raised, proof of the mental elements of the offence is not required; the court's task is confined to whether the accused physically committed the acts alleged.
  • In a wholly circumstantial case, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all reasonable alternative hypotheses are excluded before returning a finding that the physical elements are established, consistent with Hawkins v The Queen and R v Minani.
  • Unanimous expert psychiatric evidence that an accused did not appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, by reason of a disease of the mind satisfying the M'Naghten test, is a sufficient basis for a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
  • Following such a verdict, the accused is subject to detention at a place determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, with statutory notification obligations imposed on the Court's Registrar to relevant health and oversight bodies.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1900 (NSW), ss 39, 43

Cases
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
- R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718