AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 15 November 2024

R v Trinne (No 2)

[2024] NSWSC 1457

Homicide
CRIME MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH IMPAIRMENT WHERE PARTIES AGREE DEFENCE AVAILABLE

Citation: R v Trinne (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1457
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 November 2024
Judge: Weinstein J

Background

The accused, a 58-year-old man diagnosed with epilepsy and treatment-resistant schizophrenia, was charged with the murder of his 75-year-old neighbour in Kyogle on or about 26 April 2022. The two men lived in adjacent bedsit units. The deceased, who had epilepsy, features of autism, and was receiving regular dialysis, was found by his home care worker on the morning of 26 April 2022 lying on the floor of his unit with severe head injuries.

The accused had previously been found unfit for trial in October 2023 by Dhanji J, with the possibility noted that he might become fit within 12 months. By April 2024, the Mental Health Review Tribunal had determined that he remained unfit and would not become fit within the relevant period. The Crown then advised that proceedings would continue under s 53(2) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act), and the matter was listed for a special hearing.

Both the Crown and defence counsel agreed, for the purposes of s 31 of the Act, that the available evidence established a defence of mental health impairment under s 28. The defence elected not to have the matter determined by a jury, so Weinstein J conducted the special hearing as judge alone over 11 and 12 November 2024.

  • Whether the evidence, as agreed by both parties, established a defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Act, such that the Court was independently satisfied the defence was made out on the balance of probabilities.
  • Whether a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible should be entered pursuant to s 31 of the Act.
  • What consequential orders were appropriate following entry of the special verdict, including detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Decision

Weinstein J was satisfied, after independently examining the evidence, that the defence of mental health impairment was established on the balance of probabilities. The Court noted that while the parties had agreed to the defence being available under s 31, the Act requires the Court itself to be affirmatively satisfied of that position after considering the proposed evidence. It was not sufficient for the parties simply to agree.

The proceeding was characterised as an inquiry rather than an adversarial trial. Its purpose was to allow the Court to scrutinise the agreed evidentiary position and avoid a lengthy and costly trial where both prosecution and defence were satisfied that the mental health impairment defence applied. A single exhibit was tendered, comprising the indictment, agreed facts, psychiatric reports from two forensic psychiatrists (Dr Kerri Eagle and Dr Gerald Chew), and the Tribunal's reasons from November 2023 and April 2024.

On 12 November 2024, Weinstein J entered a special verdict that the act was proven but that the accused was not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment. The Court then made orders for the accused's continued detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. His Honour noted that, although this was not a judge-alone trial in the s 133 Criminal Procedure Act sense and there was no strict obligation to expose the full reasoning process, transparency and the principle of open justice warranted published reasons.

Orders Made

  • A special verdict entered under s 31 of the Act: the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment.
  • The accused to be detained in a correctional facility, or such other place as determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law (s 33(1)(b) of the Act).
  • The accused referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 34 of the Act.
  • The Registrar directed to notify the Minister for Health of the orders as soon as practicable.
  • The Registrar directed to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable and to provide the Tribunal with the Court's reasons, the transcript, and copies of the exhibit (including the reports of Dr Eagle and Dr Chew).
  • The Registrar directed to notify Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network as soon as practicable, providing a copy of the Court's reasons and the psychiatric reports.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, agreement between the Crown and defence that a mental health impairment defence is established is a necessary but not sufficient condition: the Court must independently examine the evidence and reach its own state of satisfaction before entering a special verdict.
  • A special hearing of this kind is not an adversarial or accusatorial proceeding, and is not a judge-alone trial under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The court is therefore not strictly required to expose its full reasoning process linking legal principles to findings of fact (following Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250).
  • Weinstein J, consistent with the approach in R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345, published reasons nonetheless, citing transparency and the principle of open justice.
  • Where an accused is found not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment, the Act provides for ongoing supervision by the Mental Health Review Tribunal: release requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the safety of the accused or the public will not be seriously endangered, and the accused's case is subject to review at six-monthly intervals and at any time at the Tribunal's discretion.
  • The procedure offers an early, cost-effective resolution where both parties are satisfied the mental health impairment defence is available on the evidence, avoiding a full trial while preserving the requirement for judicial scrutiny.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 6, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 59, 79, 84, 109
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133

Cases:
- Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
- R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931
- R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
- R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293
- R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064
- R v Trinne [2023] NSWSC 1212 (the earlier fitness hearing)
- R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345