AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 19 July 2022

R v Matthew Whitton

[2022] NSWDC 274

Assault & violenceDomestic & family violence
CRIME WOUND WITH INTENT TO MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH IMPAIRMENT

Citation: R v Matthew Whitton [2022] NSWDC 274
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 July 2022
Judge: Coleman SC DCJ

Background

The accused was charged with wounding a family member with intent to murder him, an offence under s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), arising from events at Moorebank on 1 December 2020. An alternative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was also laid, along with a related charge of contravening an apprehended domestic violence order. The accused entered pleas of not guilty to both primary counts.

Both the Crown and defence counsel agreed, on the basis of the proposed evidence, that a defence of mental health impairment was available to the accused. The accused was diagnosed with schizophrenia and a chronic psychotic condition. Rather than proceeding to a full criminal trial, the matter came before the court for determination under the special verdict procedure in s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ("the Act").

  • Whether the proposed evidence established the defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Act, satisfying the court's independent inquiry required by s 31(c)
  • Whether the procedural requirements of s 31 were met, including that the accused was legally represented and that both parties agreed on the available defence
  • What consequential orders should be made under ss 33 and 34 of the Act following a special verdict

Decision

The court was satisfied that the defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Act was established on the evidence. The accused's diagnosed schizophrenia and chronic psychotic condition constituted a "mental health impairment" within the definition in s 4 of the Act: a significant disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory that impaired his judgment and behaviour. The court was satisfied that at the time of the offending, this impairment meant the accused either did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not know the act was wrong.

Coleman SC DCJ followed the procedural approach outlined in R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404, treating the s 31 process as an "evidentiary inquiry" rather than a criminal trial. The court noted that s 31 is a statutory modification of ordinary adversarial procedures, designed to avoid the expense and length of a full trial where the parties agree the defence is made out. The court still provided detailed reasons, consistent with the open justice principle and the practical need to inform the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the basis for the verdict and orders.

On the question of consequential orders, the court found it was not appropriate to release the accused into the community given his mental health condition and the expert recommendations for ongoing treatment. Accordingly, s 34 of the Act required a referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The alternative count and the AVO contravention charge required no further consideration: the Crown withdrew the AVO matter following the special verdict on Count 1.

Orders Made

  • Special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" entered in respect of Count 1 pursuant to s 31 of the Act
  • The accused to be detained at a correctional facility or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law (s 33(1)(b) of the Act)
  • The Registrar to notify the Minister for Health of the orders as soon as practicable
  • The Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable and provide a copy of the court's reasons and the expert reports
  • The Registrar to notify Justice Health as soon as practicable and provide a copy of the court's reasons and the expert reports

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, a court may enter a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" without a full criminal trial where both parties agree the mental health impairment defence is established and the accused is legally represented, provided the court independently considers the evidence and is satisfied the defence is made out.
  • A s 31 hearing is an "evidentiary inquiry," not a trial, and does not require the accused to elect a judge-alone trial under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
  • Schizophrenia and chronic psychotic conditions can constitute a "mental health impairment" within the s 4 definition of the Act, provided the disturbance is clinically significant and impairs the person's judgment or behaviour.
  • The District Court confirmed that reasons must still be given for a special verdict under s 31, both to satisfy the open justice principle and to assist the Mental Health Review Tribunal in discharging its functions with respect to the person.
  • Where a special verdict is entered and release into the community is not appropriate, s 34 of the Act requires referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which then determines the place and conditions of detention.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 27, 33(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34

Cases
- R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
- R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
- R v Brian Lee (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 586
- R v Osmond [2019] NSWSC 326