AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 12 June 2020

R v Stojic (No 2)

[2020] NSWSC 730

HomicideFirearms & weapons
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS

Citation: R v Stojic (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 730
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 June 2020
Judge: Wright J

Background

The accused faced nine counts arising from events in July 2017, including the murder of a man found shot in his campervan in a parking area at Kingsgrove. The accused owned and sometimes resided at a nearby furniture business, and the Crown's circumstantial case linked him to the shooting through CCTV footage, mobile phone records, physical evidence, and admissions made to a workmate.

A history of fitness proceedings preceded the trial. The accused had previously been found unfit to stand trial and then, following a further inquiry, fit to be tried. The trial ultimately proceeded before Wright J sitting alone, with the accused pleading not guilty to all counts.

At trial, the accused raised the defence of mental illness. He had been diagnosed with Chronic Delusional Disorder, and his conduct and statements suggested he believed himself to be an undercover federal agent engaged in a long-running operation targeting Middle Eastern crime gangs.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts constituting murder and the firearms and weapons offences.
  • Whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the relevant acts, within the meaning of the defence under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).
  • Whether, as a result of that mental illness, the accused was unable to reason about his acts with a moderate degree of sense and composure, or did not know that the acts were wrong judged against the everyday standards of reasonable people.
  • Whether the Crown's concession on the six counts of possessing a detachable box magazine was properly made.

Decision

Wright J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the circumstantial evidence, that the accused committed the act of shooting the deceased. The Crown's case rested on CCTV footage, telephone records, physical evidence, and admissions. The accused's denials during his recorded police interview were assessed against that body of evidence.

On the defence of mental illness, all three forensic psychiatrists who provided expert evidence were in agreement. The accused suffered from Chronic Delusional Disorder involving both grandiose and paranoid delusions, including the fixed and false belief that he was a federal agent protecting Australia from armed criminal networks. That condition constituted a "disease of the mind" for the purposes of the legal test.

The unanimous expert evidence also established that, at the time of the acts, the accused was unable to reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure, and did not know that what he was doing was wrong as measured against the everyday standards of reasonable people. In the accused's delusional framework, he understood himself to be operating as a legitimate agent of the state. Wright J accepted this expert evidence and applied the legal test derived from M'Naghten's Case and confirmed in later High Court authority.

On the weapons possession counts (counts 4 to 9), the Crown properly conceded during final addresses that the elements of possessing a "detachable box magazine" could not be proved to the requisite standard. Wright J accepted that concession and returned verdicts of not guilty on those counts.

Orders Made

No orders were made in this decision.

Key Takeaways

  • Wright J returned verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness on the murder charge and the remaining firearms counts, applying the established test that a defence of mental illness is made out where the accused, by reason of a disease of the mind, could not reason about the acts with a moderate degree of sense and composure or did not know the acts were wrong according to everyday community standards.
  • Unanimity among forensic psychiatry experts is not legally required to establish the defence of mental illness, but where all experts agree, that agreement significantly supports the finding.
  • A fixed delusional belief that one is acting as a state-authorised agent can satisfy the mental illness defence, because such a belief may mean the accused genuinely did not understand the acts to be wrong in the relevant legal sense.
  • Under M'Naghten's Case (1843) and as confirmed by the High Court in Hawkins v The Queen (1994), the "wrongness" test is assessed against the everyday standards of reasonable people in the community, not merely whether the accused subjectively believed the acts were justified.
  • In a judge-alone trial under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the judge must record the principles of law applied and the findings of fact relied upon, and must take into account any warning that would otherwise be required to be given to a jury.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7(1), 36(1), 87
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 38
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 7(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; 8 ER 718
- The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
- The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49
- Radford v R (1985) 42 SASR 266
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
- R v Minani (2005) 62 NSWLR 48; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
- R v Hadler (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1804
- R v Stojic [2018] NSWSC 1893
- R v Stojic [2020] NSWSC 170