AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 21 August 2026

R v Smith

[2026] NSWSC 999

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER DID NOT KNOW HIS ACT WAS WRONG SPECIAL VERDICT ENTERED CRIMINAL LAW VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

Citation: R v Smith [2026] NSWSC 999
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 August 2026
Judge: Hamill J

Background

The accused, Andrew Charles Smith, was charged with the murder of his partner, Mavis Stanley, who was killed at their home in Bourke between the night of 26 October 2024 and the morning of 29 October 2024. The couple had lived together for three to four years in a relationship marked by a history of domestic violence, with each having taken out apprehended domestic violence orders against the other at various points.

Ms Stanley was last captured on CCTV on the Saturday night. Over the following days, the accused engaged in a series of erratic and violent incidents, including confronting family members with accusations of infidelity and threatening to kill a cousin, whom he accused of having been with "his woman." Ms Stanley's body was discovered on 29 October 2024.

The proceeding came before Hamill J under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the Act) for the Court to determine whether a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" should be entered. Both the prosecution and the defence agreed on that course, based on the joint opinions of two psychiatrists.

  • Whether the accused was suffering from a mental health impairment at the time of the killing, within the meaning of s 28 of the Act, such that he did not know his act was wrong or did not understand its nature and quality
  • Whether a special verdict under s 31 of the Act should be entered on the agreed psychiatric and factual material
  • What orders should follow a special verdict, including detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal
  • Whether victim impact statements could be received, and in what procedural context

Decision

Issue 1: Mental health impairment and the special verdict

Two psychiatrists agreed that the accused was suffering from a delusional disorder and/or schizophrenia at the time he killed Ms Stanley. Both experts concluded that these conditions gave rise to delusional beliefs, including a belief in his partner's infidelity, which rendered the accused unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure. On that basis, the agreed position was that the accused did not know his act was wrong within the meaning of s 28 of the Act.

Hamill J accepted the joint psychiatric opinion and the agreed facts. The Court was satisfied that the statutory criteria for a special verdict were made out and entered a verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" pursuant to s 31 of the Act.

Issue 2: Victim impact statements

Under the Act, victim impact statements may only be received after a special verdict is returned. Hamill J accordingly entered the special verdict first, then received statements from four of Ms Stanley's family members, including her daughter, cousins, and mother. The Court acknowledged the family's profound grief and their openly expressed bewilderment at the concept of "not criminally responsible," which one family member described as "bullshit." Hamill J described that reaction as entirely understandable given the language of the statute.

The statements were received into evidence and will be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, where they will be available for consideration whenever the question of the accused's release arises. Hamill J recorded that the statements would remain on the Court's archives as an enduring testament to Ms Stanley.

Issue 3: Related charges

A number of lesser charges arising from the accused's erratic conduct in the days surrounding the killing, including intimidation and property damage offences, were remitted to the Local Court at Dubbo for separate determination pursuant to s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Orders Made

  • Special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" entered pursuant to s 31 of the Act on the murder count
  • The accused is to be detained in a correctional facility, or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law (ss 33 and 34 of the Act)
  • The accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (s 34 of the Act)
  • The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Minister for Health within 7 days
  • The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and orders within 7 days and provide copies of the reasons, orders, exhibits, and victim impact statements
  • The Registrar is to notify Justice Health and provide copies of the reasons, orders, and exhibits within 7 days
  • The following charges are remitted to the Local Court at Dubbo on 3 September 2026 under s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW): Intimidation (H82629619/3), Damage to Property (H82629619/1), Intimidation (H82629619/2), and Intimidation (H422723993/1)
  • The Local Court judge is recommended to allow the accused to appear by audiovisual link

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), an accused is not criminally responsible for an act if, at the time of the act, a mental health impairment meant they did not know the act was wrong or did not understand its nature and quality. Where both psychiatrists and both parties agree that those criteria are satisfied, the Supreme Court may enter a special verdict on that joint basis under s 31.

  • A special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" is not an acquittal in the ordinary sense: the Act mandates detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, with ongoing oversight of the accused's status rather than immediate liberty.

  • Victim impact statements in proceedings under the Act are received only after the special verdict is formally entered, not before. Hamill J followed that sequence expressly, entering the verdict first to enliven the power to receive the statements.

  • The Court treated victim impact statements as documents with a function beyond the immediate proceeding. By directing the Registrar to provide them to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the judgment ensured they will form part of the material considered at any future review of the accused's detention or release.

  • Hamill J acknowledged plainly that the statutory language of "not criminally responsible" can be deeply at odds with the lived experience of a victim's family, describing one family member's reaction to that phrase as entirely understandable. The judgment is notable for the care and respect with which it addressed the deceased's family, while still applying the statutory framework.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167, 169 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) , ss 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 31 , 33, 34

Cases
- R v Presser [1958] VR 45 R v Safranko [2025] NSWSC 1543