AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 17 December 2025

R v Safranko

[2025] NSWSC 1543

Homicide
MENTAL HEALTH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS MURDER SPECIAL VERDICT ENTERED

Citation: R v Safranko [2025] NSWSC 1543
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 December 2025
Judge: McGuire J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of his mother at her home in Bankstown on 1 October 2023. The Crown alleged that he fatally stabbed her after a period of escalating, erratic and threatening behaviour. In the days immediately before the killing, the accused had physically assaulted the deceased, choked her, and made repeated threats to kill her. Police had arrested him and served him with an apprehended violence order (AVO) on 30 September 2023, granting him bail on the condition he reside elsewhere. He returned to the deceased's address the following day.

The accused also faced three related charges transferred to the Supreme Court from the Local Court: damaging property by fire, causing the death of an animal, and knowingly contravening the AVO.

Both the Crown and the defence agreed from an early stage that the defence of mental health impairment was available. At arraignment on 7 November 2025, the accused entered a plea of not guilty to murder, and both parties indicated their consent to a special verdict under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (MHCIFP Act).

  • Whether the defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the MHCIFP Act was established on the evidence.
  • Whether the court was satisfied that the accused's mental illness, specifically schizophrenia, meant he was not criminally responsible for the act of killing his mother.
  • What orders were appropriate following entry of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Decision

The matter proceeded by way of hearing on 10 December 2025 under s 31 of the MHCIFP Act, rather than as a conventional jury trial. Both parties had agreed to the special verdict, and neither psychiatric expert was required for cross-examination. The court had before it psychiatric reports from Dr Richard Furst and Dr Adam Martin, agreed facts signed by all parties, and witness accounts regarding the accused.

McGuire J was satisfied on the evidence that the accused had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and that, as a result of that mental health impairment, he was not criminally responsible for his mother's death. The court entered a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" in relation to the murder count. This verdict does not amount to an acquittal in the conventional sense; rather, it reflects that the act was established but that criminal culpability could not be attributed to the accused because of his mental illness.

McGuire J acknowledged a victim impact statement from the deceased's relative, Maxwell Rout, which described the deceased as a caring and generous person. The judge expressly acknowledged that, given the accused's mental health and the orders made, the outcome of the proceedings might feel hollow to those who loved the deceased, and extended condolences to her family and friends.

Orders Made

  • A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible was entered in relation to the murder charge, pursuant to s 31 of the MHCIFP Act.
  • The accused is to be detained in a correctional facility, or such other place as the Mental Health Review Tribunal determines, until released by due process of law (under ss 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act).
  • The accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 34 of the MHCIFP Act.
  • The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Minister for Health of the orders within 7 days.
  • The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and orders within 7 days, and provide copies of the orders, reasons for judgment, Exhibit A, and the victim impact statement.
  • The Registrar is to notify JusticeHealth and provide copies of the reasons, orders, and Exhibit A within 7 days.
  • The three related charges (sequences 2, 3 and 4 on the s 166 certificate) are remitted to the Local Court at Burwood on 4 February 2026, pursuant to s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 31 of the MHCIFP Act, a court may enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible without a jury trial where both the Crown and defence consent and the evidence supports the defence of mental health impairment.
  • A diagnosis of schizophrenia can satisfy the threshold for the mental health impairment defence under the MHCIFP Act, provided the court is satisfied the impairment deprived the accused of criminal responsibility for the act in question.
  • The special verdict does not result in unconditional release: detention in a correctional facility or other place determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal follows, with ongoing oversight by that Tribunal.
  • Related charges transferred to the Supreme Court under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) may be remitted to the Local Court after the Supreme Court disposes of the primary indictable matter, pursuant to s 169 of that Act.
  • The Supreme Court here acknowledged directly the limitations of the legal outcome from the perspective of the victim's family, reflecting the court's awareness that a special verdict may not provide the sense of resolution that a conventional conviction might.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 23A(1)(a), 195(1)(b), 530(1)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 30L
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167, 169
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Cases:
- R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292