Citation: R v Allan Kenneth Belcher [2026] NSWDC 186
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 June 2026
Judge(s): Turnbull SC DCJ
Background
The accused, a 64-year-old man diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, faced a single count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The complainant was his biological brother. The alleged offending occurred on 30 December 2024, when the complainant visited the accused at his home to encourage him to accept mental health treatment, after the accused had earlier that day turned away a mental health assessment team.
When the complainant raised the subject of the mental health team during the visit, the accused became suddenly aggressive, produced a small knife, and made repeated slashing motions at the complainant's face and neck. The complainant sustained significant lacerations, including a wound to the left jaw described by the court as a serious injury evidenced by extensive scarring visible in photographs. Others present, including the complainant's wife and a neighbour, witnessed portions of the incident before the complainant escaped. Police attended and the accused was taken to Blacktown Hospital for a mental health assessment, where he was found to be thought disordered, with paranoid and bizarre delusions, and had not been medicated for three years following the retirement of his long-term treating doctor.
The central question before the court in this judgment was not guilt or innocence, but whether section 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act) was engaged, which would permit the matter to proceed to a special verdict on the basis of mental health impairment rather than to a full contested hearing.
Legal Issues
- Whether the evidence in the proceedings established a defence of mental health impairment within the meaning of section 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.
- Whether the Crown's agreement under section 31 of the Act is a matter of discretion, or whether it constitutes an evaluative fact-finding obligation when the evidence points only one way.
- Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions can withhold agreement under section 31 for reasons not disclosed on the record, in circumstances where the expert and other evidence is uncontested.
Decision
Turnbull SC DCJ found that section 31 of the Act was engaged on the facts before the court. The expert evidence established a defence of mental health impairment, and the Crown did not intend to contest that expert evidence or any of the other evidence underpinning the Crown Case Statement. In those circumstances, the court held there was only one legally permissible answer: the proposed evidence in the proceedings established a defence of mental health impairment, and that answer compelled the conclusion that the Crown agreed within the meaning of section 31.
The court rejected the proposition that agreement under section 31 is a matter of Crown discretion. Drawing on Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 as applied in Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213, his Honour characterised the exercise as an evaluative fact-finding task, not a value judgment on which reasonable minds might differ. Where the evidence points only one way, the court held, there is a single legally permissible answer and no room for the exercise of a discretionary choice.
His Honour was also critical of the Director's approach. The court accepted that there appeared, for undisclosed reasons, to be a preference that the matter proceed to a special hearing rather than to a special verdict. The court found that approach to misapprehend the effect of section 31 and to misunderstand the nature of the Director's obligation. The consent of the Director is not required, and where all the evidence is one way, agreement is a recognition of fact, not an exercise of discretion.
The court proposed to move to entry of a special verdict but acknowledged that, given the Crown's firm submissions, steps might be taken to challenge the judgment. The matter was adjourned to allow for that possibility.
Orders Made
- The matter was adjourned to Friday, 26 June 2026 for mention.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court held that Crown agreement under section 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 is not a discretionary decision: where the evidence establishes a defence of mental health impairment and the Crown does not contest that evidence, only one legally permissible answer exists.
- Under section 31 of the Act, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not required; the provision instead imposes an evaluative fact-finding obligation, to be discharged consistently with the evidence and the intent of the legislation.
- Applying Warren v Coombes as interpreted in Hancock v R, the court distinguished between genuinely discretionary exercises (where reasonable differences of opinion are possible) and evaluative conclusions compelled by the facts, placing Crown agreement under section 31 firmly in the latter category.
- Where uncontested expert and factual evidence establishes the elements of a mental health impairment defence, a preference by the prosecution to proceed to special hearing rather than special verdict does not, on this court's analysis, reflect the will of Parliament.
- The decision leaves open whether the Crown will seek to test the judgment before 26 June 2026, and the court explicitly acknowledged that possibility in adjourning the matter for mention.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 28, 31
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132
- Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW), s 6
Cases
- Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- Bugmy (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 70