Citation: R v Graf [2020] NSWSC 1419
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 October 2020
Judge(s): Hidden AJ
Background
The accused was charged with murdering his father at their home in Gol Gol, a small town in southern New South Wales, on 16 August 2018. The accused, then in his mid-twenties, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 19 and had ceased taking his medication approximately one month before the incident. When police arrived, he made admissions that he had punched and stabbed the deceased, who was found with numerous wounds and died at the scene.
The case had a significant procedural history before reaching trial. An issue arose as to whether the accused was fit to stand trial. In December 2019, Hamill J found him unfit, citing severely compromised capacity to instruct his legal representatives and participate in proceedings. The accused was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and transferred to Long Bay Hospital for treatment.
Following a period of sustained treatment and medication compliance, the Tribunal determined in June 2020 that the accused had become fit to stand trial. Two independent forensic psychiatrists confirmed that finding, and Hidden AJ formally declared him fit on 13 October 2020, two days before delivering this judgment.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was fit to stand trial at the time of the October 2020 proceedings
- Whether the defence of mental illness was made out, specifically whether the accused knew that his actions were wrong at the time of the offence
Decision
On the fitness question, Hidden AJ accepted the convergent opinions of two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Dayalan and Dr Skinner, together with the Tribunal's findings following treatment at Long Bay Hospital. The accused demonstrated understanding of the charge, the plea available to him, and the roles of participants in the proceedings. He was found to have sufficient capacity to follow proceedings and instruct his legal representatives, with appropriate support from treating clinicians and counsel.
On the defence of mental illness, the parties agreed it was made out, and the medical evidence was described as compelling. Both psychiatrists examined the accused's mental state at the time of the offence. His behaviour was out of character, he had a reportedly positive relationship with his father, his police interview was described as incoherent, and he exhibited thought disorder consistent with acute psychosis. His cessation of medication in the weeks before the offence was also a significant contextual factor.
Hidden AJ applied the test formulated by Sir Owen Dixon in R v Porter, which asks whether the accused knew that his actions were wrong at the time of the offence. The court found that while the accused did know the nature and quality of his actions, he did not know that they were wrong, given the acute confusion and delusional beliefs arising from his psychotic state. The defence was accordingly made out, and a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was entered.
Orders Made
- The accused was found not guilty by reason of mental illness.
- Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), the accused was ordered to be detained at Long Bay Hospital, or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that a person previously found unfit to stand trial may subsequently become fit following treatment, and fitness must be reassessed in light of current psychiatric evidence at the time of trial.
- Under the test in R v Porter, the defence of mental illness requires establishing either that the accused did not know the nature and quality of their actions, or that they did not know those actions were wrong. In this case, the first limb was not satisfied but the second was.
- Where independent forensic psychiatrists retained by both prosecution and defence agree on the mental illness defence, and the Crown accepts that position, the court may act on that consensus where the underlying evidence is compelling.
- A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not result in unconditional release. Section 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) requires the court to order detention until the Mental Health Review Tribunal determines the person may be released.
- Cessation of prescribed antipsychotic medication in the period leading up to an alleged offence was treated as a relevant factor in assessing the accused's mental state at the time.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 14, 38, 39
Cases
- R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
- R v Presser [1958] VR 45
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
- Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
- R v Graf [2019] NSWSC 1767 (fitness hearing before Hamill J)