Director of Public Prosecutions v Turner (a pseudonym)
[2023] VSC 229
•9 May 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0236
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SUSAN TURNER (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HOLLINGWORTH J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 March, 9 May 2023 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 9 May 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Turner (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 229 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder (x2) – Consent mental impairment – Accused found not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Custodial supervision order made – Nominal term of 25 years – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act1997 ss 20, 21, 41 and 47.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D Porceddu | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For Ms Turner | Mr T Marsh Mr J Murphy | James Dowsley & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
In early May 2022, the offender killed her partner, Samir Yazbek, and a stranger, Sarkis Abboud. Their deaths occurred in the following circumstances.
The offender and Mr Yazbek began their relationship in 2014. It continued intermittently over the next eight years.
They had a daughter together, who was born in 2015. Their daughter was removed from their care by child protection services when she was 6 weeks old; they never regained her custody.
The relationship was a volatile one, marked by family violence. On 16 occasions, the police were involved in family violence incidents. On 12 of those occasions, Mr Yazbek was the respondent to an intervention order; on 4 of them, the offender was the respondent. Both the offender and Mr Yazbek frequently breached the intervention orders, by getting back together or visiting each other.
In November 2020, the offender was staying with Mr Yazbek at his short-stay crisis accommodation. She stabbed him several times with a knife in the middle of the night. An intervention order was made, which was to remain in place until November 2022. It prohibited the offender from seeing Mr Yazbek, or visiting his address.
In November 2021, the offender began living with Mr Yazbek, contrary to the terms of the intervention order.
On the evening of 2 May 2022, one of the offender’s adult children visited Mr Yazbek’s apartment. After she left, the offender and Mr Yazbek had a loud argument, which ended with Mr Yazbek assaulting the offender and physically removing her from the apartment. The offender left the building shortly after midnight.
Around 10:30am on Tuesday, 3 May, Mr Yazbek called his case worker at Melbourne City Mission, and arranged for her to visit him on Friday, 6 May. That was Mr Yazbek’s last known contact with anybody other than the offender.
During that Tuesday afternoon, the offender returned to Mr Yazbek’s apartment and removed some of her personal belongings with the help of a friend. It is not clear whether she was let into the building by Mr Yazbek or one of the neighbours.
Several times on the Wednesday, and in the early hours of the Thursday, the offender returned to Mr Yazbek’s apartment, and entered it using his set of keys. She removed various items, including several rubbish bags that she put in the building’s bin room.
Just before 5am on the Thursday, the offender let herself into Mr Yazbek’s apartment. She left a few minutes later, and returned with Sarkis Abboud. Almost as soon as they were inside the apartment, the offender stabbed Mr Abboud twice in the chest and twice in the back with a kitchen knife.
The offender immediately fled the building, nursing her left hand and dripping blood. She removed her top, using it to bandage her left hand. Over the next hour, she was seen by various members of the public, behaving erratically at various locations in Brunswick and Carlton. At 6:15am, the police located her, naked and covered in blood, on the floor of a tram. She was taken to hospital, for treatment to her hand.
In the meantime, police and ambulance officers responded to numerous 000 calls from Mr Yazbek’s neighbours; they arrived at the apartment building at 5:24am. Mr Abboud was on the floor in the corridor outside Mr Yazbek’s apartment. He was bleeding profusely, and in severe respiratory distress. He subsequently went into cardiac arrest. Despite resuscitation attempts, Mr Abboud was pronounced dead at 6:06am.
At 6:15am, police entered Mr Yazbek’s unlocked apartment, after finding blood smeared on doors and walls in the public hallway. They found Mr Yazbek’s dead body in the lounge, covered with a blanket. He had multiple stab wounds, defence-type injuries, and other injuries. A precise time of death could not be established. There was considerable bloodstaining throughout the bedroom, lounge and bathroom.
A religious card was positioned to face Mr Yazbek. In the palm of his hand was a photo of his daughter, a religious cross, and a small cardboard heart with the words “you’re the BEST DADDY in the whole world and I love you lots and lots. xxx”.
On 6 May, the offender was discharged from hospital and charged with the murders of Mr Yazbek and Mr Abboud.
Since her arrest, she has either been in a prison unit for psychiatrically-unwell prisoners, or at the Thomas Embling Hospital (“TEH”).
Before I discuss the offender’s psychiatric history and condition, I want to say something about the two deceased men.
Mr Abboud was born and grew up in south east Lebanon. He was 61 when he died. His wife describes him as a funny, lovable, humble man, who loved his family very much. He was his wife’s carer, and she and their children are devastated by his loss.
Mr Yazbek was 59 when he died. He was a caring family member, who supported his siblings emotionally and financially. His family in Australia and Lebanon are also struggling to understand and come to terms with what happened.
The defence did not dispute that the offender performed the acts alleged by the prosecution, but said that she was mentally impaired at the time of offending.
In June and August 2022, Dr Nina Zimmerman, a psychiatrist, assessed the offender on behalf of the defence. She concluded that the offender suffers from schizoaffective disorder. At the time of offending, the offender was psychotic and her behaviour was directly affected by delusions of reference, religious delusions, persecutory delusions about her daughter’s safety, and auditory hallucinations.
Dr Zimmerman concluded that the effect of the offender’s psychosis was that she did not know that her conduct was wrong, and could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether her conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
On 22 November 2022, Dr Prashant Pandurangi, a forensic psychiatrist, assessed the offender on behalf of the prosecution. He came to the same conclusions as Dr Zimmerman.
The offender was 44 at the time of the offending. She has a long history of psychiatric problems, beginning in her mid-teens, when she left an abusive family home, stopped going to school, and started using various substances. She began experiencing mood problems in her early 20s, and was initially diagnosed with a drug-induced psychosis. She was later diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, an enduring mental illness with features of both psychosis and mood-related symptoms.
She has been admitted to hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment on more than a dozen occasions, as well as being subject to community treatment orders, both under the Mental Health Act 2014. Over the years, she has been treated with various anti-psychotic drugs, as well as electroconvulsive treatment.
At the time of the offending, the offender was under the care of a mental health service, and was receiving treatment under a community treatment order. However, the dose of her monthly antipsychotic depot injection had been decreasing, due to side effects she had been experiencing.
On 9 March 2023, a hearing was held to consider the issue of mental impairment. Because both the prosecution and the defence agreed that the expert evidence established a defence of mental impairment, s 21(4) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (“the Act”) allowed the evidence to be heard by judge alone.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I was satisfied that the evidence established the defence of mental impairment under s 20(1)(b) of the Act, in that the offender was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of committing the offences, the effect of which was that she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether her conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
I directed that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded, and declared the offender liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Act. The offender was remanded in custody in prison, pending the preparation of the further report required by s 41(1) of the Act. The proceeding was listed for further hearing in September 2023, pending a place at TEH becoming available for the offender under the Act.
In fact, due to a decline in her mental state, the offender was transferred from prison to TEH on a secure treatment order under the Mental Health Act 2014.
A s 41 report was provided by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Sobia Khan of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (“Forensicare”), dated 12 April 2023. The report addressed the offender’s current mental health state and treatment.
Dr Khan assessed the offender as still suffering from ongoing psychosis, and experiencing paranoia and delusions of reference. She still believes that God intended her to kill the two men.
Dr Khan assessed the offender as having a high baseline of historical risk for violence. Her current and dynamic risk remains moderate to high, depending on where she is located. Dr Khan recommended that placement at TEH under a custodial supervision order was the most appropriate option for the offender to continue to receive suitable treatment at this time.
A s 47 certificate of available services was provided by Forensicare, dated 17 April 2023. It indicated that facilities and services were available for the offender at TEH.
On 9 May 2023, I made the following orders:
(a) A custodial supervision order is made pursuant to s 26 of the Act.
(b) The offender is committed to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, to remain at the Thomas Embling Hospital.
(c) Pursuant to s 28 of the Act, the nominal term of the supervision order is 25 years from 6 May 2022.
(d) Pursuant to s 27 of the Act, the matter will be brought back for review no later than 5 years from today.
(e) Pursuant to s 75(1) of the Act, disclosure by publication is prohibited of the following information:
(i) any information that might enable the offender to be identified; and
(ii) any evidence of the offender’s conduct towards the deceased after she stabbed them.
0
0
0