AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 11 December 2025

R v Snjegota

[2025] NSWSC 1478

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CROWN CASE

Citation: R v Snjegota [2025] NSWSC 1478
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 December 2025
Judge: Campbell J

Background

The accused was charged with murdering his father at Farmborough Heights on or about 3 February 2024. The deceased died from severe blunt force injuries to the head. The accused had consistently denied any involvement, and the Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

Before trial, a fitness inquiry was conducted after expert psychiatric evidence raised concerns about the accused's chronic Schizophrenia. Following stabilisation on anti-psychotic medication, the accused was found fit to plead. He was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and the matter was set down for a judge-alone trial.

The trial proceeded in two stages. Evidence on the physical elements of the offence, principally the identity of the perpetrator, was heard in July 2025. A later hearing in November 2025 addressed the mental health impairment defence under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), after the Crown obtained its own forensic psychiatric report.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, in circumstances where the Crown's case was entirely circumstantial and the accused denied involvement.
  • Whether the hypothesis of an unidentified intruder as the perpetrator rose to the level of a reasonable possibility, sufficient to prevent the Crown from discharging its onus.
  • Whether the accused had available the mental health impairment defence under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), having been diagnosed with chronic Schizophrenia.
  • Whether the accused knew that his act of killing was "wrong" in the legal sense, as distinct from any broader moral sense, at the relevant time.

Decision

Identity of the perpetrator

Campbell J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who inflicted the fatal blunt force injuries on the deceased. The Crown's case was circumstantial, and the court applied the established principles governing proof in circumstantial cases, including that guilt must be the only rational inference available from the proved facts. The court rejected the hypothesis that an unidentified intruder was responsible, finding it did not rise to the level of a reasonable possibility on the evidence.

The mental health impairment defence

Having found the accused was the perpetrator, the court turned to the defence under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). That provision applies where, at the time of the act, the accused was suffering from a mental health impairment that had the effect of causing them not to know the nature and quality of the act, or not to know that it was wrong. The onus of establishing the defence rests on the accused on the balance of probabilities.

Both psychiatric experts, Dr Adam Martin and Professor David Greenberg, were substantially in agreement. The accused suffered from chronic Schizophrenia. At the time of the killing, the accused's psychosis was likely active and his capacity to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure was significantly impaired. His behaviour before and after the event was described in evidence as bizarre and commensurate with a person suffering from chronic mental illness. Both experts were of the view that the killing was consistent with paranoid thought processes, emotional dysregulation, and responses mediated by psychotic symptoms including the possible perception of threat.

The legal/moral wrongfulness distinction

The court applied the distinction, recognised in cases such as The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182, between knowing that an act is legally wrong and knowing that it is morally or ethically wrong in some broader sense. The test under s 28 is directed to legal wrongfulness. Campbell J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, by reason of his chronic Schizophrenia, the accused did not know that his act of killing his father was wrong in the legal sense. The court was therefore required to return the special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Orders Made

  • Special verdict returned: act proven, but not criminally responsible, on the charge of murder.
  • The accused referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for review as soon as practicable, pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).
  • The Registrar directed to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with copies of the court's reasons, the reports of Professor David Greenberg (21 September 2025) and Dr Adam Martin (three reports), and the Victim Impact Statement.
  • The accused ordered to be detained in his current place and manner pending review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and thereafter as the Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court confirmed that a circumstantial Crown case can sustain a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt where alternative hypotheses, including the involvement of an unidentified intruder, do not rise to the level of a reasonable possibility on the evidence.
  • Under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), the relevant question is whether the accused knew their act was wrong in the legal sense, not merely whether they had a general moral awareness of wrongdoing. The court applied the distinction drawn in The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182.
  • A diagnosis of chronic Schizophrenia does not automatically render an accused unfit to plead or stand trial. Fitness is assessed at the time of the proceedings and may change as a condition is stabilised through medication.
  • Where both the Crown's and the accused's psychiatric experts reached substantially the same opinion on the mental health impairment defence, and the accused's psychotic symptoms at the time of the offence were supported by lay evidence of bizarre behaviour, the balance of probabilities threshold for the s 28 defence was satisfied.
  • A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible does not result in an acquittal in the conventional sense. The accused is instead referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which determines the appropriate ongoing supervision or detention.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 40
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132A, 133

Cases
- R v Snjegota [2024] NSWSC 1551
- The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
- Shephard v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
- R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 1
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
- R v McIntyre [2000] NSWCCA 6; 111 A Crim R 211
- R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- Western Australia v Rayne [No 3] [2012] WASC 404