Director of Public Prosecutions v Adams (a pseudonym) (Ruling)

[2022] VCC 1265

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Prosecution
v
NOAH ADAMS (A PSEUDONYM)	Defence

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE CARMODY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 AUGUST 2022
DATE OF RULING:	11 AUGUST 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Adams (a pseudonym) (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 1265

RULING
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Ruling  

Catchwords:   Consent mental impairment – defence of mental   impairment established – sexual assault of a child under                   16 years – sexual penetration of a child of lineal   descendant

Legislation Cited:  Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, s20(1), s20(2), s21(4)

Sentence:Not guilty because of mental impairment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Ms S. Pillai	Director of Public of Prosecution
For the Defence	Mr M. Habib	Docherty Legal

HIS HONOUR:

1On 2 August 2022, Mr Noah Adams[1] was arraigned on the following charges on indictment No. M11238245:

·Charge 1, sexual assault of a child under 16 years;

·Charge 2, sexual assault of a child under 16 years;

·Charge 3, sexual penetration of a child of lineal descendant.

[1] A pseudonym.

2Mr Adams pleaded not guilty to these charges.

3The prosecutor tendered the following documents: 

·Exhibit A, Summary of Prosecution Opening for Trial dated 24 July 2022;

·Exhibit B, Addendum to Summary of Prosecution Opening: Consent Mental Impairment dated 29 July 2022;

·Exhibit C, Psychiatric report by Dr Rajan Darjee dated 13 May 2022;

·Exhibit D, Psychiatric report by Dr N. Zimmerman dated 18 February 2022.

Dr Rajan Darjee, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist

4Dr Rajan Darjee gave evidence in this proceeding remotely via Zoom. He confirmed the contents of his report were true and correct. Dr Darjee repeated his opinion that Mr Adams was “clearly acutely psychotic and very unwell at the time of the alleged offences”. He also stated that if Mr Adams was not “acutely and floridly unwell at the time, it is extremely unlikely that the alleged offences would have occurred”. Dr Darjee confirmed his opinion set out in his report:

‘In my view he did not know the nature and quality of the conduct in the moments when he was perpetrating the alleged sexual abuse, as he genuinely believed his daughter was possessed by an evil spirit who was compelling him to engage in sinful sexual behaviour. Although he knew it was his daughter’s body, the evil spirit had taken her over at the time, and he believed he was engaging sexually with the demon’

‘He also did not know that the conduct was wrong, and in my view, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. Due to his delusional mental state at the time, he believed he was in a spiritual conflict with the demon who possessed his daughter, and although he knew sexual contact and behaviour with his daughter was wrong, when he allegedly offended, he believed her to be possessed by a demon who was compelling and tempting him to act as he did’.

5It was agreed by the prosecution and defence that the available evidence established the defence of mental impairment. Further, the prosecution and defence agreed that I should hear the matter in accordance with s.21(4) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (“CMIA Act”).

6Section 21(4) empowers me to hear the evidence and if satisfied that the evidence establishes a defence of mental impairment, I can direct a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment to be recorded.

7For the following reasons I find that Noah Adams is not guilty of the three offences because of mental impairment.

The defence of mental impairment

8Section 20(1) of the CMIA Act, provides the test for a defence of mental impairment as outlined below:

‘The defence of mental impairment is established for a person charged with an offence here at the time of engaging the conduct constituting the offence. The person was suffering from a mental impairment that had any effect of or effect that:

(a) he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or

(b) he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong, that is, he or she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense or composure about whether the conduct was as perceived by reasonable people was wrong.’

9If the defence of mental impairment is established pursuant to s20(1), I must find that Mr Adams is not guilty of these charges because of mental impairment pursuant to s20(2) of the CMIA Act.

10In your case the prosecution and your representatives agreed that both limbs (a) and (b) of s.20(1) of the CMIA Act apply in your case. In this case both Dr Darjee and Dr Zimmerman agree that at the time of the alleged offending you did not know the nature and quality of your conduct. Nor did you know that your conduct was wrong in the sense that you could not reason with a moderate degree of sense or composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

11Mr Adams was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his late 20’s. He has had contact with mental health services and brief admissions to hospital since he was 25 years old. At the time of the alleged offending he was 57 years old and had ceased taking his anti-psychotic medication.

12Mr Adams reported to the medical examiners, Dr Darjee and Dr Zimmerman, that his daughter was possessed by evil spirits. Mr Adams had sealed the windows of his home with silver paper to block out the “rays” and he constructed a “faraday cage” in his front room where he slept. The demons were in his house he reported.

13Mr Adams presented himself to Bendigo Police Station and reported the alleged offending. Mr Adams has been in custody since 15 June 2021. Mr Adams is at the mental health unit at Ravenhall Correctional Centre.  Mr Adams is now back on his medications of olanzapine and citalopram. In Dr Darjee’s opinion the medications have dramatically reduced the hallucinations experienced by Mr Adams.

Finding

14I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the defence of mental impairment is established in respect of limbs (a) and (b) of s.20(1) of the CMIA Act. I find Noah Adams not guilty of the three offences on the indictment because of mental impairment pursuant to s20(2) of the CMIA Act.  I made this finding on 2 August 2022 and reserved the delivery of these reasons.

15I made the following orders:

(1) The proceedings be adjourned (part heard) to 24 October 2022 at 10:30am.

(2) Mr Adams is remanded in custody to 24 October 2022 at 10:30am.

(3) Pursuant to s.41 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, I order a further report to be prepared by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and that that report be delivered on or before 3 October 2022.

(4) Pursuant to s.47 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, I order that a certificate of available services be filed by 3 October 2022.

(5) Declare that Mr Adams is liable to supervision pursuant to s.26(1) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.