AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 3 July 2024

R v Dalla-Betta

[2024] NSWSC 819

Homicide
CRIME CHARGE OF MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH IMPAIRMENT JUDGE ALONE TRIAL EVIDENCE BY FORENSIC PSYCHIATRISTS SPECIAL VERDICT

Citation: R v Dalla-Betta [2024] NSWSC 819
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 July 2024
Judge: Walton J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of a woman who had been his friend, following an incident on 13 June 2022 at the accused's home in Prairiewood. The deceased had maintained a friendship with the accused after the death of her partner, who had also been known to the accused. That evening, the accused stabbed the deceased approximately 35 times with a kitchen knife.

Shortly after the incident, the accused drove himself to a nearby police station, where he told officers he had stabbed and killed the deceased and asked to be arrested. He also identified himself as a schizophrenic at that point. Police attended the home and located the deceased with multiple stab wounds.

The accused was indicted for murder in November 2023 and pleaded not guilty on mental health grounds. Both the Crown and the accused subsequently agreed, after reviewing the psychiatric evidence, that the defence of mental health impairment was established. The matter proceeded as a judge-alone hearing rather than a jury trial.

  • Whether the three criteria under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the MHCIFP Act) were satisfied so as to permit the court to enter a special verdict
  • Whether the accused had a "mental health impairment" within the meaning of s 4 of the MHCIFP Act at the time of the offence
  • Whether that impairment had the effect under s 28(1)(b) of the MHCIFP Act that the accused did not know the act of killing the deceased was wrong (that is, could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act was wrong as perceived by reasonable people)
  • What consequential orders should follow from a special verdict under ss 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act

Decision

Walton J confirmed that the first two criteria under s 31 of the MHCIFP Act were satisfied without difficulty: the Crown and the accused had agreed that the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment, and the accused was represented by an Australian legal practitioner. The remaining question was whether the court itself was independently satisfied that the defence was established on the evidence.

The court considered expert reports from two forensic psychiatrists. Dr Olav Nielssen provided reports for the accused, and Dr Adam Martin provided a report for the Crown. The court conducted what has been described in earlier decisions as an "evidentiary inquiry" under s 31(c), a process that is distinct from a trial. Drawing on the framework in R v Siemek (No. 1), Walton J applied the two-limb test: first, whether the accused had a mental health impairment at the time of the act; and second, whether that impairment had one of the effects specified in s 28(1).

The court focused on s 28(1)(b), the limb concerned with whether the accused did not know the act was wrong. Having considered the psychiatric evidence, Walton J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defence was established and that the accused was not criminally responsible for the offence by reason of his mental health impairment.

Following the entry of the special verdict, the court received victim impact statements from the deceased's daughter and niece. The court noted its obligation under s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to provide those statements to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT), and made orders accordingly.

Orders Made

  • A special verdict entered under s 31 of the MHCIFP Act: the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible
  • Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act, the accused is to be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law
  • The Registrar to notify the Minister for Health of the orders within 7 days
  • The Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and orders within 7 days
  • The Registrar to provide the MHRT with a copy of the judgment, orders, and exhibits within 7 days
  • The Registrar to notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide copies of the judgment, orders, and exhibits within 7 days
  • The court to provide copies of the victim impact statements to the MHRT under s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) within 7 days

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 31 of the MHCIFP Act, a court may enter a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" without proceeding to a full trial where both parties agree the evidence establishes the defence of mental health impairment and the court is independently satisfied on that evidence.
  • A hearing under s 31 is not a trial: it is an evidentiary inquiry, consistent with the approach confirmed in R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404 and R v Sands [2021] NSWSC 1325.
  • The defence of mental health impairment under s 28 has two limbs, both determined on the balance of probabilities: the existence of a qualifying mental health impairment, and the effect that the accused either did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know the act was wrong.
  • A presumption operates under s 28(3) that the accused did not have a relevant mental health impairment until the contrary is proved, meaning the defence bears the onus of displacing that presumption on the balance of probabilities.
  • Following a special verdict, victim impact statements must be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the MHRT may consider them when determining conditions to be imposed upon any future release.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 31, 33, 34
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30N(4)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases:
- R v Sands [2021] NSWSC 1325
- R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
- R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
- R v Jawid [2022] NSWSC 788