AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 1 November 2024

R v Yeon (No 2)

[2024] NSWSC 1389

HomicideDomestic & family violence
MENTAL HEALTH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS DEFENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH IMPAIRMENT ACCUSED UNFIT TO STAND TRIAL

Citation: R v Yeon (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1389
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 November 2024
Judge(s): Wright J

Background

The accused was charged with murdering his mother at a rural property in Greendale, New South Wales, between 26 and 30 December 2022. The Crown alleged he struck her repeatedly on the head with a wine bottle, then dragged her body to the garage, where neighbours discovered it on the evening of 30 December 2022. A related charge of knowingly contravening an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) arose from the same events, as the order prohibited the accused from assaulting or intimidating his mother.

In April 2024, the accused was found unfit to stand trial under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the MHCIFP Act), and it was determined he would not become fit within 12 months. Because the Director of Public Prosecutions did not advise that further proceedings would be abandoned, a special hearing was convened before Wright J on 21 October 2024.

At the special hearing, the defence did not contest the physical acts alleged by the Crown. Instead, the defence sought a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible on the basis of mental health impairment. The Crown formally did not oppose that outcome.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the accused deliberately carried out the physical acts underlying each charge, to the requisite standard of proof.
  • Whether the accused had a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 28 of the MHCIFP Act at the time of those acts.
  • Whether that mental health impairment had the effect that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his acts, or did not know that his acts were wrong.
  • Whether the defence of mental health impairment was made out on the balance of probabilities, entitling the accused to a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Decision

Physical acts established by the Crown

Wright J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately struck his mother on the head with a full wine bottle a number of times between 27 and 29 December 2022, causing her death (at [98]). The court was similarly satisfied that the physical elements of the ADVO contravention charge were established (at [99]). The accused's own account in a recorded interview was largely consistent with the other evidence and was accepted (at [97]-[98]).

Existence of mental health impairment at the time of the acts

The court accepted the unchallenged and consistent evidence of two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Ellis and Dr O'Dea (at [102]). Although they described the accused's condition in slightly different diagnostic terms, one referring to schizoaffective disorder and the other to chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia, Wright J found the difference did not indicate any substantial disagreement (at [109]). The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of the acts, the accused had at least a temporary disturbance of thought, mood or perception that was significant for clinical diagnostic purposes and that impaired his judgment and behaviour, constituting a mental health impairment under s 28 of the MHCIFP Act (at [109]).

Effect of the impairment: knowledge of nature, quality, and wrongness of the acts

The court accepted Dr Ellis's opinion that the accused's delusional beliefs, including a belief that he was killing a clone rather than a human being, impaired his ability to know the nature and quality of his acts (at [110]). His delusional system also led him to believe he had a divine imperative to kill clones and that doing so was right, meaning he did not know his conduct was wrong as judged by ordinary standards of reasonable people (at [110]). His disorganised thinking further impaired his ability to reflect on his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure (at [110]). The court accepted Dr O'Dea's opinion to the same effect (at [111]). Both experts' conclusions were well supported by the accused's psychiatric history, his statements at arrest and hospitalisation, and his answers during the recorded interview (at [112]).

Defence of mental health impairment made out

The court was satisfied that the accused proved each element of the defence of mental health impairment on the balance of probabilities in respect of both charges, and that the requirements of s 28(1) and (2) of the MHCIFP Act were met (at [113]). Because the defence was established, it was unnecessary to consider whether any specific intent for murder had been proved (at [114]).

Orders Made

  • A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered in respect of the murder charge (count 1 on the indictment).
  • A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered in respect of the charge of knowingly contravening a prohibition in an ADVO (the s 166 certificate charge).
  • Pursuant to ss 61(2) and 33(1)(b) of the MHCIFP Act, the accused is to be detained in his present place of custody, or at such other place as lawfully determined, until released by due process of law.
  • Pursuant to s 67 of the MHCIFP Act, the accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
  • The Registrar is to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdicts and orders within 7 days.
  • The Registrar is to notify Justice Health of the verdicts and orders, and provide a copy of the judgment, orders, and each psychiatric report, within 7 days.

Key Takeaways

  • At a special hearing under the MHCIFP Act, the purpose is to determine whether the prosecution can prove, on limited available evidence, that the person committed the offence charged. The court must acquit unless that standard is met, and a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is available where the defence of mental health impairment is established (at [6], [11]).

  • Where the defence of mental health impairment is raised, the accused bears the onus of proving that defence on the balance of probabilities, a lower standard than the Crown's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt (at [27]).

  • Unanimous and unchallenged expert psychiatric evidence that an accused had a mental health impairment cannot be rejected by a tribunal of fact in the absence of other material casting doubt on it. In this case, no such contrary material existed, and the court accepted both experts' conclusions without reservation (at [37], [109]).

  • Under s 28 of the MHCIFP Act, an accused does not know an act is "wrong" if, as a result of mental health impairment, the accused could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure, with "wrong" judged by everyday standards of reasonable people (at [50], [110]). Delusional beliefs that an act is morally required can satisfy this element.

  • Slight diagnostic differences between expert witnesses, such as whether a condition is characterised as schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia, do not necessarily indicate a substantial disagreement that would undermine either opinion, provided the functional conclusions about the accused's mental state are consistent (at [109]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4(2), 28(1) and (2), 36, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58(1), 59(1)

Cases
- Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
- R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
- R v Yeon [2024] NSWSC 360
- The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28