Citation: R v Batey [2025] NSWSC 1585
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 December 2025
Judge: Weinstein J
Background
The accused, a 20-year-old man, was charged with the murder of a 47-year-old man contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The deceased was a fellow inmate at Parklea Correctional Centre. The two men had been placed together in the same cell on 16 March 2024, and by the following morning the deceased was found dead with visible injuries. CCTV footage confirmed no other person had entered the cell overnight.
The accused had been remanded at Parklea for the first time just days before the alleged offence. He had no mental health conditions detected on admission. The deceased, by contrast, had a documented history of psychosis, paranoid and aggressive behaviours, and self-harm, though he had no previous protection history in custody.
Both the Crown and the defence agreed at an early stage that the evidence supported a defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The matter was accordingly listed for a special hearing before a judge alone, rather than proceeding to a full jury trial.
Legal Issues
- Whether the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) on the balance of probabilities
- Whether the Court was satisfied under s 31 of the Act to enter a special verdict of act proven but defendant not criminally responsible
- What consequential orders and directions should follow the special verdict
Decision
Weinstein J conducted the special hearing on 16 December 2025. Both the Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted that the evidence, including three reports from forensic psychiatrist Dr Richard Furst and one from forensic psychiatrist Dr Rafe Pulley, established the defence of mental health impairment. The Court was required under s 31 of the Act to independently consider that evidence and be satisfied the defence was made out, regardless of the parties' agreement.
The proceeding was described by Weinstein J as neither adversarial nor accusatorial. It functioned as an inquiry initiated at an early stage to avoid the cost and length of a full trial, where both parties were in agreement on the available evidence. The Court carefully examined the tendered material before reaching its own conclusion.
His Honour was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defence of mental health impairment was established. A special verdict was accordingly entered: the act was proven but the accused was not criminally responsible. Weinstein J noted that while a judge in such proceedings is not strictly required to expose detailed reasoning (consistent with Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250), transparency and the principle of open justice warranted the publication of reasons.
Following the verdict, the accused was ordered to be detained and referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Tribunal will review the matter as soon as practicable, with ongoing six-monthly reviews. Release is available only if the Tribunal is satisfied that neither the accused nor any member of the public would be seriously endangered.
Orders Made
- A special verdict was entered under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW): the act is proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment
- The accused is to be detained in a correctional facility, or such other place as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law (s 33(1)(b))
- The accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (s 34)
- The Registrar is directed to notify the Minister for Health as soon as practicable
- The Registrar is directed to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and provide copies of the Court's reasons, the transcript, and the psychiatric reports of Dr Furst and Dr Pulley
- The Registrar is directed to notify Justice Health and the Forensic Health Network and provide copies 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 (NSW), the Court must independently satisfy itself that the defence of mental health impairment is established on the balance of probabilities, even where both parties agree that it is available.
- A special hearing under the Act is neither adversarial nor a judge-alone trial in the conventional sense; the Court is not required to expose its reasoning process linking legal principles to facts found, as confirmed in Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250.
- Weinstein J observed that, consistent with prior decisions including R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345, transparency and open justice nonetheless support the publication of reasons in such proceedings.
- Where a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is returned, ongoing supervision passes to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which retains authority to determine detention, conditions of release, and recall if circumstances change.
- Agreement between the Crown and defence on the availability of the mental health impairment defence can facilitate an early resolution through a special hearing, avoiding the need for a lengthy and costly trial.
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, 78, 79, 84, 109
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
- 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; [1994] HCA 28
- 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 (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1064
- R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345