AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
3
Supreme Court 27 April 1999

REGINA v. NOYES

[1999] NSWSC 397

Homicide
MURDER DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS SPECIAL VERDICT ORDER FOR DETENTION.

Citation: REGINA v. NOYES [1999] NSWSC 397
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Criminal Division)
Date: 27 April 1999
Judge(s): Greg James J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of his mother at Seven Hills on or about 16 November 1997. In the early hours of that morning, he telephoned emergency services requesting an ambulance and a priest. When police arrived, they found him splattered with blood and making statements consistent with severe religious delusion, including a belief that his mother had needed to be killed to prevent the birth of a demonic child.

The accused admitted to police that he had killed his mother. His statements described elaborate delusional beliefs about his mother's relationships and the supposed imminence of her giving birth to a demon. The injuries inflicted were described by the court as bearing the hallmarks of a severely deranged mind.

The accused elected trial by judge alone, with the concurrence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. At trial, the defence did not contest that the accused had caused his mother's death with the requisite intent for murder. The sole issue was whether the defence of mental illness was established.

  • Whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing, within the meaning of the defence under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
  • Whether the mental illness was of such a nature as to deprive the accused of the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of his act, or to know that it was wrong
  • What orders were appropriate following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness

Decision

Both the Crown and the defence submitted that the evidence supported the mental illness defence. The court received psychiatric evidence from two experts: Dr Bruce Westmore (retained on behalf of the accused) and Dr Robert Lewin (retained on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions). Both psychiatrists concluded that the accused was severely mentally ill at the time of the offence, diagnosing him with paranoid schizophrenia.

Dr Westmore opined that the killing was driven by delusional beliefs of a religious nature, including beliefs about the devil and cults, and that the illness had totally deprived the accused of his relevant capacities at the time. The court also received extensive evidence of the accused's prior history of mental illness, including previous hospital admissions, a prior finding of mental illness by a magistrate, and a history of aggressive and disturbed behaviour escalating in the weeks before his mother's death.

Greg James J accepted the psychiatric evidence and the admissions made by the accused. The court found that at the time of the killing the accused was, by reason of mental illness, unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or, alternatively, unable to appreciate that his act was wrong. A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness was returned pursuant to section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

The court went on to explain, for the benefit of the accused and the public, the practical consequences of the verdict. The accused would be detained in strict custody as a forensic patient, subject to periodic review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Any release, whether conditional or unconditional, could only occur on the recommendation of the Tribunal and by order of the Governor, and only where the Tribunal was satisfied that neither the accused's safety nor the safety of any member of the public would be seriously endangered.

Orders Made

  • The accused was ordered to be detained in strict custody at the A Ward of Long Bay Prison Hospital, and thereafter in such place as determined according to law, until released by due process of law.
  • An order was made under section 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

Key Takeaways

  • A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 is available where the evidence establishes that, at the time of the offence, the accused was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the act or that the act was wrong, by reason of mental illness.
  • Where both the prosecution and defence psychiatrists agree on the existence and effect of mental illness at the time of the offence, that agreement carries significant weight in the court's determination.
  • The Supreme Court confirmed that a special verdict does not result in liberty for the accused. Detention in strict custody follows automatically, with release available only through a closely regulated process involving the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Minister for Health, and the Governor.
  • Under the statutory scheme, the Mental Health Review Tribunal must commence a review within 14 days of the verdict and must review the case at least every six months thereafter. Release can only be recommended where the Tribunal is satisfied that public safety would not be seriously endangered.
  • A history of prior psychiatric admissions, a prior judicial finding of mental illness, and contemporaneous delusional statements made to police at the scene can collectively constitute powerful evidence in support of the mental illness defence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
- Evidence Act (NSW), s 184
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) (referenced in the court's explanation of detention arrangements)

Cases:
- Regina v Gillett [1999] NSWSC 115
- Regina v Maxwell [1999] NSWSC 281
- Regina v Gavranovic [1999] NSWSC 205