Citation: R v Fineanganafo (No 1) [2024] NSWSC 1400
Court: Supreme Court of NSW
Date: 8 November 2024
Judge: Davies J
Background
The accused faced six charges arising from events on 13 and 14 April 2023 in the Campbelltown area. The charges included intimidation, malicious damage to property, use of an offensive weapon, theft, and the murder of a man referred to in these proceedings. The murder charge required the matter to be committed for trial in the Supreme Court.
Leading up to the trial, both parties were aware the accused had significant mental health issues. Psychiatric reports were obtained, and consideration was given to whether the accused would rely on substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for the murder charge, or whether a broader enquiry under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the Act) would be sought across all charges.
By the time the matter came before Davies J on 4 November 2024, both the defence and the prosecution agreed that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment. The court was asked to conduct an enquiry under s 31 of the Act before any jury was empanelled.
Legal Issues
- Whether the proposed evidence, considered under s 31 of the Act, established the defence of mental health impairment across all six charges
- Whether the accused suffered from a "mental health impairment" as defined in s 4 of the Act, specifically schizophrenia
- Whether that impairment had the effect that the accused did not know his acts were wrong at the time of each offence, satisfying s 28(1)(b) of the Act
- Whether certain statements made by the accused at the time of the stabbing cast doubt on the psychiatric opinions that he did not know his actions were wrong
Decision
Davies J conducted an evidentiary inquiry under s 31 of the Act, which is not a trial but a statutory mechanism allowing the court to consider the agreed position of both parties before a jury is empanelled. The court's role was to assess whether the evidence satisfied the defence on the balance of probabilities. If not satisfied, the matter would proceed to a jury trial in the ordinary way.
Two psychiatrists gave evidence and agreed that the accused suffered from schizophrenia, a psychotic disorder that constitutes a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4 of the Act. There was no dispute that the accused physically committed each of the acts charged. The central question was whether the impairment meant he did not know his acts were wrong.
A potential complication arose from remarks the accused allegedly made at the time of the stabbing, which could have suggested some awareness that his actions were wrong. However, both psychiatrists addressed this directly in supplementary reports. They explained that the accused was so grossly impaired in his capacity to think and reason logically that the remarks did not alter their opinion. One remark, on closer analysis, appeared to reflect a compulsion to act rather than an appreciation of wrongdoing, consistent with earlier clinical assessments noting that he acted on voices and felt unable to stop himself.
Davies J found no reason to doubt the psychiatrists' opinions and accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment and that the impairment had the effect that he did not know his acts were wrong in respect of each count on the indictment.
Orders Made
- A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible was returned in relation to each count on the indictment.
Key Takeaways
-
Under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), a court may enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible before a jury is empanelled, provided both parties agree the evidence establishes the defence and the court is independently satisfied after considering that evidence.
-
The s 31 procedure is described as an "evidentiary inquiry" rather than a trial, and does not require the accused to elect trial by judge alone. If the court is not satisfied, the matter proceeds to a jury in the ordinary way.
-
Schizophrenia, as a psychotic disorder involving significant disturbances of thought, perception and judgment, satisfies the definition of "mental health impairment" in s 4 of the Act.
-
Statements made by an accused at the time of offending that might suggest awareness of wrongdoing do not automatically defeat the s 28(1)(b) defence. Where expert psychiatric opinion accounts for and addresses those statements, and no other material undermines that opinion, a court may still accept that the accused did not know his acts were wrong.
-
Where both the prosecution and defence agree that the evidence establishes the defence, and two independent psychiatrists reach consistent conclusions unchallenged by contrary expert evidence, the court will generally accept those opinions on the balance of probabilities.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 14, 28, 31, 33, 34
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A, 33B, 117, 195
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW), s 14
Cases:
- Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
- R v Iusi Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
- R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
- R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292