Citation: R v Rey Quintana (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1732
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 December 2020
Judge: Lonergan J
Background
On 28 February 2018, the accused stabbed Thomas Halatoa once in the back during a confrontation at the accused's apartment in Tregear. The wound punctured the deceased's lung; he collapsed after fleeing the building and was pronounced dead at hospital that afternoon. The accused did not know the deceased had died when police arrived and found him with significant facial injuries, including a swollen-shut eye.
The Crown alleged the accused stabbed the deceased deliberately, intending to cause grievous bodily harm, out of anger at having been robbed and bashed. The defence argued the accused acted in self-defence, having been severely beaten and choked to unconsciousness by the deceased and another man, leaving him terrified and believing he had no choice but to grab a knife. The accused's long-term treatment-resistant schizophrenia was central to understanding his perception of events.
The matter proceeded as a judge-alone trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to murder, with self-defence as the primary defence and substantial impairment by mental illness as an alternative argument to reduce any murder finding to manslaughter.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused formed an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased.
- Whether the Crown disproved self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, specifically:
- whether the accused believed it was necessary to do what he did to defend himself; and
- whether his response was objectively reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them.
- What role the accused's treatment-resistant schizophrenia played in assessing his perception of the circumstances and the reasonableness of his response.
- If murder had been established and self-defence negatived, whether the accused's mental illness substantially impaired his capacity to control himself, reducing the offence to manslaughter.
Decision
Lonergan J found the accused not guilty of murder, accepting that self-defence had not been disproved by the Crown to the required standard. The verdict made it unnecessary to reach the substantial impairment question.
On the first limb of self-defence, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not believe it was necessary to stab the deceased in order to defend himself. Expert psychiatric evidence from Dr Furst and Professor Greenberg established that the accused's schizophrenia heightened his perception of vulnerability and danger. The court accepted that this condition was a relevant "extraordinary attribute" bearing directly on what the accused believed at the time.
On the second limb, the court was similarly not satisfied that the accused's response was objectively unreasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. The accused was a 58-year-old man in poor health who had just been bashed severely and choked unconscious by men younger and physically stronger than him. His attackers had not left his apartment, he had no working phone, and he had no realistic prospect of physically overpowering them. His perception of the danger he faced was further heightened by the effects of his mental illness.
The court emphasised that self-defence is not assessed through calm courtroom analysis after the fact, but with proper regard to the reality and urgency of the circumstances the accused faced and the way he perceived those circumstances at the time.
Orders Made
- The accused was found not guilty of murder.
- The accused was discharged.
Key Takeaways
- A court assessing self-defence must consider the circumstances as the accused subjectively perceived them, including any established mental illness that affected that perception, when evaluating both whether the accused believed action was necessary and whether the response was objectively reasonable.
- Under the two-limb test for self-defence in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Crown must disprove each limb beyond reasonable doubt; if it fails on either limb, self-defence is not negatived and an acquittal follows.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the objective reasonableness of an accused's response is informed by subjective factors, including the accused's mental illness, physical condition, and perception of the threat at the relevant moment.
- Expert psychiatric evidence about the effects of treatment-resistant schizophrenia was accepted as directly relevant to the accused's perceived circumstances, demonstrating that mental illness short of a complete defence can still carry decisive weight in a self-defence analysis.
- In a judge-alone trial under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the judge must apply all legal principles, make findings of fact, and take into account any warnings that would otherwise be given to a jury.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 421
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases:
- Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
- Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2
- R v Hutchinson & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
- R v Quintana (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 724