Citation: R v Yilin Liu [2025] NSWSC 1370
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 November 2025
Judge: Sweeney J
Background
The accused had pleaded guilty to the murder of the deceased, who was killed between 25 December 2020 and 1 January 2021. According to the Statement of Agreed Facts, the accused strangled the deceased at a cannabis farm near Bathurst on 28 December 2020, acting on instructions from a person described as "the boss." The accused and another person subsequently buried the body on the property.
The accused pleaded guilty in the Local Court in August 2024, confirmed that plea in the Supreme Court in September 2024, and was awaiting sentencing when new solicitors came on record. In August 2025, the accused filed a notice of motion seeking leave to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing he had been suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing that would have supported a mental illness defence at trial.
The Crown opposed the application. A preliminary question about jurisdiction arose because a conviction had already been recorded, though sentence had not yet been imposed. The Court determined at an earlier hearing that it retained jurisdiction to consider the application.
Legal Issues
- Whether the interests of justice required that the accused be granted leave to withdraw his guilty plea, applying the test in White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241
- Specifically, whether there was a triable issue as to whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing that affected his conduct
Decision
Sweeney J applied the framework from White v R, which identifies the interests of justice as the governing test for withdrawal of a guilty plea. That test encompasses a broad, non-exhaustive range of factors, but the integrity of the plea as a genuine admission of guilt is typically central. The Court found no basis to doubt the integrity of the plea itself: the accused had been represented by experienced counsel (the Deputy Senior Public Defender), received advice in writing and in person about the strength of the Crown case, had access to an interpreter throughout, and confirmed his plea before the Supreme Court.
The principal argument pressed by the accused was that a triable mental illness defence existed. Two psychiatrists gave evidence: one for the accused (Dr Allnutt) who considered a mental illness defence arguable, and one for the Crown (Dr Martin) who expressed significant reservations. Sweeney J accepted that the accused had shown symptoms and received a diagnosis of schizophrenia in his teens, and further accepted that he had been treated for symptoms of mental illness in custody since 2022.
However, the Court found there was no satisfactory evidence that the accused was suffering from mental illness symptoms at the time of the killing, in December 2020, or in the period leading up to his arrest in March 2022. The surveillance recordings from that period contained no psychotic content; the accused's statements were coherent, purposeful, and included calculated observations about the likely state of the evidence against him. Dr Martin's assessment of those recordings supported that conclusion. The accused's own account to the psychiatrists, that he had been continuously hearing voices since his teens, was treated with caution given the absence of any hospital presentations in Australia before his arrest.
Sweeney J concluded that the evidence was "eloquently persuasive" that the accused was not suffering from mental illness symptoms affecting his conduct at the time of the killing. Because no mental illness issue rose to the level of a triable question, and no other basis in the interests of justice was identified, the application was refused.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the governing test for withdrawal of a guilty plea is whether the interests of justice require it, applying the multi-factor framework set out in White v R (2022) 110 NSWLR 163.
- A claimed mental illness defence can, in principle, enliven the interests of justice to permit withdrawal of a plea, but only where the evidence raises a genuinely triable issue as to the accused's mental state at the time of the offending.
- Where psychiatric evidence conflicts, the court undertakes its own evaluative assessment of the competing expert opinions and the underlying factual material, including surveillance recordings, rather than treating the existence of any expert support as automatically sufficient to establish a triable issue.
- The integrity of a plea is not the only consideration under White, but it remains the focal point in most cases; the absence of any challenge to the circumstances in which legal advice was given, or to the voluntariness of the plea, weighed heavily against the application.
- Accepting that an accused has a history of mental illness, and is currently being treated for it in custody, does not of itself establish that a mental illness existed at the time of the offence so as to create a triable issue warranting withdrawal of a guilty plea.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- White v R (2022) 110 NSWLR 163; [2022] NSWCCA 241
Legislation:
- No specific legislation was cited in the decision.