AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 12 September 2001

R v Adams

[2001] NSWSC 773

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIMINAL LAW NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

Citation: R v Adams [2001] NSWSC 773
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division
Date: 12 September 2001
Judge(s): Sperling J

Background

The accused was a young woman charged with two separate offences committed when she was aged 16. The first charge arose from an incident on 25 January 1999 at Warilla, in which she stabbed her mother with a knife. This charge was originally brought as attempted murder but was later amended to malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The second charge arose from a stabbing on 23 July 1999 at Haberfield. By that time, the accused was in custody at a juvenile justice centre, where the victim worked as a TAFE employee at the centre's school. The accused was charged with his murder.

The accused was found unfit to be tried in November 2000. After the Mental Health Review Tribunal determined she would not become fit within 12 months, the Attorney General directed that a special hearing be conducted under s 18 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. The special hearing was conducted before Sperling J without a jury, following an election by the accused under s 21A of that Act.

  • Whether, at a special hearing conducted under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the court could find on the limited evidence available that the accused committed the offences charged or any available alternative offences.
  • Whether the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 was made out on the second charge, so as to reduce the verdict from murder to manslaughter.
  • Whether defences of mental illness or automatism were available or sustainable on the evidence.

Decision

The actus reus (the physical act) of stabbing with a knife was admitted by defence counsel in relation to both charges. The contested questions were therefore ones of mental state and available defences.

On the first charge, His Honour applied the elements of malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 33 of the Crimes Act 1900 and found, on the limited evidence available, that the accused had committed that offence.

On the second charge, three psychiatrists gave evidence. Drs Westmore, Wilcox, and Brown each diagnosed the accused with a severe personality disorder, with additional features of post-traumatic stress disorder or dissociative disorder, likely linked to a history of abuse. All three agreed that, at the time of the fatal stabbing, the accused's capacity to control herself was substantially impaired by that abnormality of mind. Sperling J accepted that evidence and found the impairment sufficiently substantial to warrant reducing liability from murder to manslaughter under s 23A.

The defences of mental illness (under s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act) and automatism were not pursued. Sperling J noted both were appropriate concessions: neither defence was sustainable on the evidence.

Orders Made

  • On the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence of maliciously wounding Dianne Adams with intent to do grievous bodily harm, at Warilla on or about 25 January 1999.
  • On the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence of manslaughter of Scott Bremner, at Haberfield on 23 July 1999.

(Note: under s 22(3) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, these verdicts constitute qualified findings of guilt and do not constitute a basis for conviction. They also operate as a bar to further prosecution arising from the same circumstances.)

Key Takeaways

  • A special hearing under s 18 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 proceeds as closely as possible to an ordinary criminal trial, but the available verdicts are qualified findings only. A finding that the accused "committed the offence" does not amount to a conviction and bars further prosecution for the same circumstances.
  • Under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter where the accused's capacity to understand events, judge right from wrong, or control their behaviour was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition. The burden of proving this partial defence rests on the accused.
  • Consistent psychiatric evidence from treating and forensic psychiatrists, diagnosing severe personality disorder with post-traumatic stress features, was accepted by the Supreme Court as sufficient to establish substantial impairment under s 23A.
  • Where a notified defence such as automatism is not supported by the evidence, it is open to defence counsel to decline to press it, and the court may record that this was an appropriate decision on the facts.
  • The Supreme Court confirmed that s 21A permits an accused person at a special hearing to elect trial by judge alone, provided the consent of the prosecutor is obtained and the accused has received legal advice about the election beforehand.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 5, 23A, 33
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 177
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 11A, 16, 18, 19, 21, 21A, 21B, 22, 38

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the judgment.