AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 28 April 2026

R v Summers-Smith

[2026] NSWSC 425

Assault & violenceHomicide

Citation: [2026] NSWSC 425
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 April 2026
Judge(s): Yehia J

Background

The accused, a 29-year-old man with a history of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, was charged with the murder of a 30-year-old British tourist at the Hume Inn Motel in Albury on 8 July 2024. The two men were not known to one another. Both were staying at the motel.

The deceased was travelling around Australia on holiday with a friend. On the evening in question, the accused left his motel room, crossed the car park, and stabbed the deceased once in the chest through the open window of a car. The deceased went into cardiac arrest and was declared dead at Albury Base Hospital shortly afterwards. At the time of the killing, the accused was subject to a Community Treatment Order due to expire later that month.

The accused pleaded not guilty when arraigned in December 2025. Both the prosecution and the defence agreed that the evidence established a defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The matter proceeded as a hearing under s 31 of that Act.

  • Whether the Court was satisfied, on the basis of the proposed evidence, that the defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) was established.
  • Whether a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible should be returned pursuant to s 31 of the Act.
  • The receipt and treatment of victim impact statements following a special verdict, including the Court's obligations under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Decision

The matter proceeded by way of a special hearing under s 31 of the Act, not a judge-alone trial. The evidence before the Court comprised a statement of agreed facts (tendered under s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)) and three psychiatric reports: one prepared by the defence-retained psychiatrist (Dr Furst) and two prepared by the Crown-retained psychiatrist (Dr Eagle). Both experts supported the availability of the mental health impairment defence.

The agreed facts detailed the accused's diagnosed history of treatment-resistant schizophrenia with psychotic symptoms. On the day of the killing, the accused purchased a pack of steak knives, returned to the motel, and used one of those knives to stab the deceased. CCTV footage captured his movements before and after the stabbing. The accused and the deceased had no prior connection.

Yehia J noted, citing the recent decision in R v Lim [2026] NSWSC 378, that while the s 31 procedure does not require reasons for verdict in the manner of a judge-alone trial, the strong public interest in open justice made it appropriate to provide reasons. Her Honour was satisfied on the evidence that the defence of mental health impairment was established, and returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Following the special verdict, the Court received victim impact statements from the deceased's partner and his parents, as required by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The Court acknowledged the profound grief and loss described in those statements, and noted its obligation to provide copies to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Orders Made

  • A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible was returned pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).
  • Victim impact statements were received and acknowledged pursuant to ss 30L and 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), with copies to be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
  • (The judgment text was truncated; any further orders regarding the accused's status as a forensic patient or directions to the Mental Health Review Tribunal may have followed but were not included in the available text.)

Key Takeaways

  • Even where both prosecution and defence agree that the evidence supports a defence of mental health impairment, the Supreme Court must independently satisfy itself that the defence is made out before returning a special verdict under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).
  • A special hearing under s 31 is not a judge-alone trial and does not require reasons in the form mandated for such trials; however, reasons should nonetheless be given in the interests of open justice and public confidence, consistent with R v Lim [2026] NSWSC 378 and R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293.
  • Concordant expert psychiatric evidence from both Crown and defence psychiatrists, diagnosing the accused with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, was central to the Court's satisfaction that the mental health impairment defence was established.
  • Under ss 30L and 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), specific procedural requirements govern the handling of victim impact statements following a special verdict, including the obligation to forward those statements to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30N(4)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 31, 33(1)(b), 34
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133

Cases:
- R v Lim [2026] NSWSC 378
- R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293
- R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064
- Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
- R v Batey [2025] NSWSC 1585