AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 20 February 2025

R v Williams

[2025] NSWSC 85

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER FITNESS INQUIRY FITNESS TO BE TRIED

Citation: R v Williams [2025] NSWSC 85
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 February 2025
Judge: Fagan J

Background

The accused is charged with the murder of his cousin at Lavington in the early hours of 26 June 2023. It is alleged he stabbed the deceased in the neck while both were staying at a house in Albury. The deceased sustained life-threatening wounds and died in hospital 18 days later.

The accused, a 34-year-old Indigenous man, has been in custody since the date of the alleged offence. He was committed to the Supreme Court in October 2024 and was first listed before the Criminal List Judge in December 2024. He was not arraigned at that time because the defence raised a question about his fitness to stand trial under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

The Court conducted a fitness inquiry based on documentary evidence jointly tendered by the Crown and the defence, including psychiatric reports from two experts and supporting clinical and custodial records.

  • Whether the accused currently meets the statutory test for unfitness to be tried under s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
  • Whether any trial process modifications could accommodate the accused's impairment
  • Whether, on the balance of probabilities, the accused may become fit to be tried within the next 12 months

Decision

Fagan J found the accused unfit to stand trial by reason of a mental health impairment, specifically schizophrenia. The accused has a long history of substance use, including heavy methamphetamine use from age 17. He has experienced auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, delusions of reference, and disorganised thinking. Significantly, these symptoms have persisted in custody well after access to substances was reduced, pointing to a condition beyond mere drug-induced psychosis.

The defence engaged Dr Andrew Ellis and the Crown engaged Dr Adam Martin. Both psychiatrists provided reports; neither was required to give oral evidence and neither opinion was challenged. Dr Ellis diagnosed schizophrenia and concluded the accused presents with significant thought disorder and ongoing auditory hallucinations. Dr Martin agreed the accused is currently unfit. The evidence also raised a possible cognitive impairment, though this was not definitively established.

Fagan J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is unable to perform nearly all of the functions listed in s 36(1) of the Act. The one partial exception was the capacity to enter a plea, though even here the accused cannot understand the possibility or suitability of raising a mental illness defence. The Court considered whether modifications to the trial process could address the impairment and concluded, given the likely length and complexity of a murder trial, that no such modifications would be sufficient.

The Court also found it probable that the accused may become fit within 12 months if he receives appropriate antipsychotic treatment. Dr Ellis estimated that six months of treatment would likely be sufficient to clarify whether fitness could be restored, noting that most people found unfit with schizophrenia do recover fitness within that period. This finding triggered the mandatory referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 49(1) of the Act.

Orders Made

  • The accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 49(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
  • The accused is remanded in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act
  • The psychiatric reports of Dr Ellis and Dr Martin are to be forwarded to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and to Justice Health

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court found the accused unfit to stand trial for murder on the ground of mental health impairment (schizophrenia), applying the fitness test in s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).
  • Persistence of psychotic symptoms in a drug-free custodial environment was a significant factor in distinguishing schizophrenia from a drug-induced or substance-related disorder, which would not qualify as a mental health impairment under the Act.
  • Under s 44(5), the Court is required to consider whether trial process modifications could facilitate the accused's participation. Here, the likely length and complexity of a murder trial weighed against any such accommodation being adequate.
  • A finding of unfitness does not end the matter. Where the court determines on the balance of probabilities that the defendant may become fit within 12 months, referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 49(1) is mandatory.
  • Fitness inquiries under the Act are not adversarial, and the onus of proof does not rest on any particular party. In this case both psychiatric experts were jointly tendered and neither was cross-examined.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 36, 44, 47, 49

Cases:
No cases were cited in the judgment.