AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 26 June 2026

R v Webster

[2026] NSWSC 722

HomicideTraffic & driving
CRIME JUDGE ALONE TRIAL MURDER DRIVING OFFENCES

Citation: R v Webster [2026] NSWSC 722
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 June 2026
Judge: Sirtes J

Background

The accused was charged by indictment dated 21 April 2026 with three offences alleged to have occurred on 7 December 2024: the murder of a man in Iluka; dangerous driving involving a course of conduct threatening to cause an impact with another vehicle while intending to cause actual bodily harm to a person in that vehicle; and driving whilst pursued by police in a reckless and dangerous manner. The accused pleaded not guilty to all three counts.

The accused was tried by judge alone, having consented to that mode of trial. When arraigned before Hamill J on 5 June 2026, the accused indicated that the sole issue was whether he could establish a defence of mental health impairment. Psychiatric evidence before the Court established that the accused had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

On 17 June 2026, both the prosecution and the defence advised the Court that they had agreed, under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), that the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment. The matter then proceeded as an evidentiary inquiry rather than a trial.

  • Whether the three conditions under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) were satisfied, such that the Court could enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible
  • Whether the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment to the Court's satisfaction
  • What orders and referrals should follow from the entry of a special verdict

Decision

The s 31 Inquiry: Sirtes J confirmed that a hearing under s 31 is not a trial but an evidentiary inquiry. The three conditions for entry of a special verdict are: agreement between the accused and the prosecutor that the evidence establishes a defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment; the accused being represented by an Australian legal practitioner; and the court being satisfied, after considering that evidence, that the defence is so established. All three conditions were met in this case.

The Defence of Mental Health Impairment: The Court considered two psychiatric reports prepared by Professor David Greenberg OAM and a report by Dr Richard Furst. Both the prosecution and the defence agreed the evidence established the defence. The accused's diagnosed schizophrenia formed the basis of the mental health impairment defence. Sirtes J was satisfied that the defence was established on the evidence.

Reasons Despite No Formal Requirement: Because the hearing was not a trial, s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) strictly did not require written reasons. However, following the approach taken in R v Summers-Smith [2026] NSWSC 125 and earlier authorities, Sirtes J provided reasons in the interests of open justice and to assist the community in understanding the outcome on a serious charge.

Victim Impact Statements: Three victim impact statements were received from family members of the deceased. Sirtes J acknowledged the grief and loss described in those statements. The Court is required under s 30L(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to receive such statements only after the special verdict is entered, and under s 30N(4) to provide copies to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Orders Made

  • A special verdict was entered on each count pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW): the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible
  • Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of that Act, the accused is to be detained in a correctional facility or 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 s 34 of that Act
  • The victim impact statements of the three family members are to be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
  • The Registrar is to notify the Minister for Health of the making of the orders as soon as practicable
  • The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable and provide it with the Court's reasons, the transcript, and copies of the psychiatric exhibits
  • The Registrar is to notify the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network as soon as practicable and provide it with the Court's reasons and copies of the psychiatric reports

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible may be entered where both parties agree that the evidence establishes the defence, the accused is legally represented, and the court is independently satisfied that the defence is made out.
  • A hearing conducted under s 31 is an evidentiary inquiry, not a trial; as a result, s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) does not strictly require the provision of reasons, but courts have consistently provided them in the interests of open justice.
  • Victim impact statements in cases resulting in a special verdict may only be received after the verdict is entered, and the court is obliged to acknowledge their receipt and forward copies to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
  • Diagnosis with schizophrenia, supported by forensic psychiatric evidence agreed upon by both parties, was sufficient to establish the mental health impairment defence to the Court's satisfaction across all three counts, including a murder charge.
  • Following a special verdict, the accused does not receive a sentence but is instead detained and referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which then oversees ongoing management and any future release.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 49
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30N
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW), s 20

Cases:
- R v Summers-Smith [2026] NSWSC 125
- R v Lailna [2023] NSWSC 48
- R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064
- R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
- R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28