AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 4 November 2026

R v Sharma

[2026] NSWDC 402

Assault & violenceDomestic & family violence
MENTAL HEALTH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WOUND WITH INTENT TO MURDER PSYCHOTIC DISORDER SPECIAL VERDICT ENTERED

Citation: R v Sharma [2026] NSWDC 402
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 4 November 2026
Judge: Noman SC DCJ

Background

The accused was charged on indictment with wounding with intent to murder, and in the alternative wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, following an assault on his wife on 23 June 2024. The assault involved hitting the victim to the head three times with a metal pole and stabbing her multiple times to the arm, chest, and back. A related summary offence of breaching an apprehended violence order (AVO) obtained by the victim on 5 June 2024 was also before the court.

From around 2021, the accused had developed a fixed but erroneous belief that his wife was engaged in numerous affairs. There had been earlier violence toward her. On the day of the assault, the accused had written a letter accusing her of infidelity, drank poison afterwards claiming he intended to kill himself, and admitted to police that he had hit and stabbed her.

Both the Crown and the defence ultimately agreed that the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The matter was resolved without a trial, with the court conducting its own independent evidentiary inquiry before entering a special verdict.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the act supporting the principal offence of wounding with intent to murder was proven.
  • Whether the accused's delusional disorder constituted a "mental health impairment" within the meaning of section 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.
  • Whether that impairment prevented the accused from reasoning about the wrongfulness of his actions, satisfying the requirements for a special verdict under section 31 of the Act.
  • Whether the special verdict and associated reasoning applied equally to the related summary AVO breach offence.
  • What detention or release orders were appropriate following entry of the special verdict.

Decision

Issue 1: The act proven

The court was satisfied that the conduct on 23 June 2024 was not in dispute. The accused admitted to hitting and stabbing the victim, the physical injuries amounted to wounding, and the conduct was both voluntary and planned (at [10], [13], [16]). The court found the act supporting the principal offence proven (at [13]).

Issue 2: Mental health impairment

Both psychiatric experts, Dr Furst (retained by the defence) and Dr Dayalan (retained by the Crown), concluded that the accused had a delusional disorder at the relevant time that significantly impaired his ability to reason about the wrongfulness of his conduct. Dr Dayalan's earlier report also noted that schizophrenia could not be excluded, and both experts considered the possible overlay of dementia, though this was not determinative given the principal diagnosis (at [20]-[22]). The agreed position of both psychiatrists was that the defence of mental health impairment was available (at [23]).

Issue 3: Special verdict

After independently reviewing the evidence and expert opinions, the court was satisfied that the accused's delusional disorder constituted a mental health impairment under section 28 of the Act, and that this impairment prevented him from reasoning about the wrongfulness of his actions (at [26]). The defence was accordingly established on the balance of probabilities, and a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" was entered under section 31 of the Act (at [27], [31]).

Issue 4: Related summary offence

The court accepted that the expert opinions on mental health impairment applied equally to the related AVO breach offence. The same special verdict was entered for that offence as well, the court being satisfied this was in the interests of justice (at [28], [31]).

Issue 5: Detention orders

The court found that the accused continues to pose a risk to himself and others due to a persisting psychotic disorder, with delusional thinking remaining focused on the victim. The court was not satisfied he could be safely managed in the community and ordered his continued detention in a correctional centre until released by due process of law, pending further assessment and determination by the Mental Health Review Tribunal (at [40], [41]).

Orders Made

  • A special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" entered pursuant to section 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 in relation to both the count of wound with intent to murder and the AVO breach offence.
  • The accused is to be detained within a correctional centre as determined by Corrective Services NSW, or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
  • The accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to section 34 of the Act.
  • The Court Registry is to, within seven days: notify the Minister for Health, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and Justice Health of the verdicts and orders; and provide the Tribunal and Justice Health with copies of the judgment and tendered exhibits, including the victim impact statement.

Key Takeaways

  • A delusional disorder can constitute a "mental health impairment" for the purposes of section 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, where that disorder prevents the accused from reasoning about the wrongfulness of their actions (at [26]).
  • Under section 31 of the Act, a court must conduct its own independent evidentiary inquiry before entering a special verdict, even where both parties agree that the defence of mental health impairment is established (at [29]).
  • Where expert opinion on mental health impairment is directed principally at the more serious conduct on indictment, the District Court accepted it had equal application to a related summary offence arising from the same conduct, permitting the same special verdict to be entered for that offence (at [28]).
  • The fact that conduct was voluntary and planned does not preclude a finding of mental health impairment under the Act; the statutory test focuses on the accused's capacity to reason about the wrongfulness of their actions, not on whether the conduct was premeditated (at [16], [26]).
  • Following entry of a special verdict, section 30L of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 enables a victim to have a victim impact statement received by the court, a process the District Court described as an important mechanism to give the victim a voice in proceedings that might otherwise leave them feeling unheard (at [33]-[36]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- ss.27 and 33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- s30L Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- ss. 166 and 167(3A) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- ss. 4, 28, 31, 33, and 34 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases
- Not stated