Citation: R v Spencer [2020] NSWSC 386
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 April 2020
Judge: Hidden AJ
Background
The accused stood trial before Hidden AJ, sitting without a jury, for the murder of his father. The Crown alleged that on 11 September 2018 the accused fatally stabbed his father multiple times at their home in Trundle, New South Wales. The accused formally admitted the physical elements of the offence: that he caused his father's death by stabbing him repeatedly with the intention of killing him.
The accused had a long and documented history of serious mental illness, specifically schizophrenia diagnosed in his late teens. His psychiatric history included multiple hospital admissions, persistent religious and grandiose delusions, non-compliance with medication, and ongoing heavy use of cannabis and methamphetamine. In the period leading up to the offence he was subject to a community treatment order administered by the Parkes Community Mental Health Service.
The sole contested issues at trial were whether the defence of mental illness was established, or alternatively whether the partial defence of substantial impairment applied under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused had established the defence of mental illness on the balance of probabilities, such that he did not know the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the killing.
- Whether, as an alternative, the partial defence of substantial impairment was made out under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Decision
Hidden AJ accepted the evidence of two forensic psychiatrists: Dr Anthony Samuels, retained by the defence, and Dr Kerri Eagle, retained by the Crown. Both experts concluded that the accused was in an acute psychotic state at the time of the killing, driven by delusional beliefs that his father was Satan or the devil. The Crown itself accepted that the mental illness defence was made out, making it unnecessary to consider substantial impairment.
The court applied the test established in The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182, asking whether the accused was able to reason with a degree of calmness or composure as to the moral quality of his actions. Dr Eagle concluded that, as a result of his psychotic symptoms, the accused was unable to do so and therefore could not know the wrongfulness of his actions. His conduct before and after the killing, including disturbed Facebook posts and his demeanour at a local hotel shortly after the event, corroborated a severely disordered mental state.
Hidden AJ acknowledged that the accused had a troubled relationship with his father, including a history of arguments and physical confrontations. One statement the accused made during a recorded call, expressing that his father was "always at him", raised the possibility that personal animosity played a role. The court was nonetheless satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the killing was the product of acute psychosis caused by serious mental illness, and not of grievance or hostility arising from the troubled relationship.
The court entered a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. His Honour explained that this verdict does not result in immediate release: the accused would be detained in custody and later in a secure psychiatric facility, subject to supervision by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Any future leave or release would require the Tribunal to be satisfied that it would not seriously endanger the accused or members of the public.
Orders Made
- A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was entered.
- An order under s 39(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) that the accused be detained until released by due process of law (final terms to be settled after consultation with the parties).
- Receipt of a victim impact statement from the deceased's sister, pursuant to s 30L of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), to occur before formal orders were made.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court applied the established Porter test, requiring the accused to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that, due to mental illness, he was unable to reason calmly as to the moral quality of his actions and therefore could not know their wrongfulness.
- A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness does not mean automatic release. Under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), the accused is detained and subject to ongoing supervision by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which must be satisfied any release would not endanger the accused or the public.
- Where both the defence and Crown psychiatric experts agreed that a mental illness defence was established, and the Crown itself conceded the point, the court had no need to examine the alternative partial defence of substantial impairment.
- Evidence of a troubled pre-existing relationship between the accused and the deceased did not displace the mental illness defence, provided the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the killing was truly the product of psychosis rather than personal animosity.
- Corroborating evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct, including social media posts and behaviour at a public venue immediately after the killing, supported the conclusion that he was in an acute psychotic state at the time of the offence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A (substantial impairment)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 30L (victim impact statements)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 184 (formal admissions)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 39(1) (detention order)
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW), s 32 (magistrates' mental health diversions)
Cases
- The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 (the foundational Australian test for the defence of mental illness)
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500