AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 22 September 2021

R v Warren Scott (No 2)

[2021] NSWSC 1201

Homicide
TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE WHERE ACCUSED WAS SCHIZOPHRENIC AND NON COMMUNITY VALUES ACCUSED CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER

Citation: R v Warren Scott (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1201
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 September 2021
Judge: N Adams J

Background

The accused, a 36-year-old Aboriginal man with schizophrenia, intellectual disability, and chronic alcoholism, stabbed a family friend 31 times at his mother's home in Eden on 4 April 2019. The deceased had been living with the accused's mother since January 2019 and was regarded as a close friend of the accused. There was no identified motive, no prior conflict, and the attack occurred without warning or provocation.

The accused was charged with murder. He pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Crown did not accept that plea, and the matter proceeded to a judge-alone trial before Adams J.

Two forensic psychiatrists agreed the accused suffered from schizophrenia but disagreed about whether the killing was more attributable to his mental illness or to his intoxication at the time. An alternative basis of intoxication under s 428C was initially flagged but ultimately not pressed.

  • Whether the accused's capacity to understand events, judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or control his actions was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from schizophrenia.
  • Whether that impairment was so substantial as to warrant reducing his criminal liability from murder to manslaughter under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
  • What weight should be given to self-induced intoxication, as distinct from the accused's underlying chronic alcohol dependence and its effect on medication compliance, in assessing the partial defence.

Decision

Adams J found that the accused's schizophrenia, combined with his intellectual disability and chronic alcohol dependence, substantially impaired his capacity to understand events, to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, and to control himself at the time of the stabbing. The judge accepted that the accused's non-compliance with antipsychotic medication was itself a product of his alcohol dependence, and that his intellectual disability further affected his decision-making capacity.

The judge acknowledged the statutory prohibition on relying on self-induced intoxication as a basis for the partial defence. However, the accused's long-term alcohol dependence, and its role in driving his non-compliance with medication, were treated as relevant background circumstances rather than as intoxication at the time of the offence.

Eyewitness accounts described the accused that day as appearing "possessed," with a blank stare and behaviour markedly different from his usual self. The accused's psychosis continued well after the stabbing and long after he had withdrawn from alcohol, a factor that weighed in favour of attributing his state to mental illness rather than intoxication alone.

Adams J concluded, as a value judgment informed by community values, that the degree of impairment was so substantial as to warrant reducing liability from murder to manslaughter. The accused was found not guilty of murder and convicted of manslaughter.

Orders Made

  • The accused was found not guilty of murder.
  • The accused was convicted of manslaughter.
  • The proceedings were stood over for submissions on sentence on 7 December 2021 at 10:00am.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a partial defence of substantial impairment requires the court to assess whether an abnormality of mind substantially impaired the accused's capacity to understand events, judge right from wrong, or control their actions, and to make a value judgment that the impairment warrants reducing murder to manslaughter.
  • A diagnosis of schizophrenia does not automatically establish substantial impairment; the court must weigh the respective contributions of mental illness and self-induced intoxication to the accused's state at the time of the offending.
  • The Supreme Court distinguished between self-induced intoxication at the time of the offence (which is excluded from the partial defence analysis by statute) and the broader effects of chronic alcohol dependence on a mentally ill person's medication compliance and decision-making capacity over time.
  • An accused's intellectual disability is a relevant consideration alongside a psychiatric diagnosis when assessing the overall degree of impairment under s 23A.
  • The persistence of psychotic symptoms well after alcohol withdrawal was treated as significant evidence that mental illness, rather than intoxication alone, underpinned the accused's state at the time of the killing.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A, 428A, 428C
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases:
- Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229
- Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
- R v Haydar (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 159
- R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
- R v Quinn (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1244
- R v Trotter (1993) 35 NSWLR 428
- R v Warren Scott [2021] NSWSC 1004 (judge-alone application, same proceedings)