Director of Public Prosecutions v Yu

[2025] VCC 1168

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-25-00297
Indictment No: Q11284087.1

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

FEIRAN YU

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PILLAY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Yu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1168

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Consent mental impairment – charge of causing serious injury intentionally – accused suffering from Bipolar I Disorder – expert evidence – verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – matter adjourned 

Legislation Cited:      Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) s20, s21, s24, s40, s41 and s42; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)

Judgment:                  Direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr G Buchhorn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms A Kapitaniak	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women

HIS HONOUR:

1The accused has been charged with causing serious injury intentionally contrary to s16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

2The victim is James Carroll who is the accused’s husband.

3The accused was born in China in October 1987.[1] She came to Australia in about 2008 as a student. She completed studies in business and financial planning as well as business management and then practised as an accountant from about 2011 to 2014. During this time she met the victim. Later they married and in about 2015 they moved in together.

[1]        The summary of prosecution opening was tendered as Exhibit P1 and the parties accepted that it stood

as an agreed statement of facts pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)

4Sometime in 2023 the accused’s mother-in-law became unwell with terminal cancer. This seemed to provoke the onset of mental illness. The accused had a number of inpatient stays from late 2023 to June 2024. Some of these were on an involuntary basis and others were on a voluntary basis. During this time her behaviour became more bizarre; locking her husband in the house, hiding his keys and making outrageous financial demands of him. On 14 June 2024 the accused had a delusional episode where she poured water over a number of electrical appliances in their home and started a small fire.

5As the circumstances of the offending are not disputed I will briefly recite from the summary of prosecution opening for trial which was accepted by defence as accurately representing the factual circumstances of the offending. On 18 June 2024 the victim was asleep at their home on Raith Avenue, Sandringham. The accused was present at their home. At approximately 7:40AM the victim woke to find the accused sitting on top of him. She had a filleting knife in her right hand and she used it to stab him multiple times to his face, ear, neck, chest and hands. The victim managed to push the accused away and roll off the bed but was pushed to the ground by the accused and stabbed to his back. At that point the victim grabbed the knife and snapped off its blade before fleeing into a bathroom. The accused followed the victim and with the now broken knife stabbed the victim again. The victim was able to escape the house by diving through a window in the lounge room. In the course of that action the victim hit his face on the pavement and broke some front teeth. The victim’s injuries were substantial. He required hospitalisation and multiple surgeries. They have had long-term effects. Police and paramedics arrived around 8:05AM. The victim was conveyed to hospital.

6Police attended Raith Avenue. All doors to the house were found to be locked and most of the blinds were closed. Attempts to communicate with the accused inside the house failed. Police forced entry into the house at about 8:30AM. The accused was found sitting on the floor between the bedroom and bathroom. Her hands and face were covered in blood. She was not communicative. She was arrested and formally cautioned. At that stage the accused said “I don't understand. Who should I call? Can I put my sunglasses on?” The accused was taken to hospital. No formal police interview was undertaken as forensic medical officers considered she was unfit.

7At the police station on 18 June 2024 the accused attempted to grab an officer's gun. She was then found on numerous occasions attempting to strangle herself. She was taken to the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (DPFC) and spent six days there. On 27 June 2024 she was transferred to Thomas Embling Hospital. She attempted suicide a number of times there.

Defence of Mental Impairment

8Defence rely on a forensic psychiatric report by Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, a consultant forensic psychiatrist dated 15 December 2024.[2] He conducted interviews with the accused while she was at the DPFC in early November 2024 for about an hour and a half. As this matter has been dealt with by consent it is unnecessary for present purposes to repeat the extensive details of the accused’s personal, medical and psychiatric history set out in that report. Based on the results of the mental state examination in conjunction with clinical assessment and information received from other sources Associate Professor Darjee expressed the opinion that the accused was at the time of the alleged offending:

“…clearly and obviously acutely and floridly unwell with psychotic symptoms and symptoms of severe mood disturbance at the time of the alleged offending. The symptoms continued in prison and at Thomas Embling Hospital for about two months before they responded to treatment with antipsychotic, mood stabilising and antidepressant medication."[3]

[2]        Exhibit P3, report of Associate Professor Rajan Darjee dated 15 December 2024

[3]        Exhibit P3 at paragraph [50]

9Overall he considered:

“In my opinion, the most appropriate diagnosis is bipolar affective disorder, with an episode of depression of mild to moderate severity after the death of her father and then a period of severe disturbance with psychotic symptoms since the death of her mother-in-law in September 2023. Over the last year she has clearly had periods of mania and periods of depression both associated with psychotic symptoms. An alternative diagnosis could be schizoaffective disorder given that some of her psychotic symptoms have been quite bizarre and have continued despite changes in her mood from manic to depressed.”[4]

[4]        Ibid at paragraph [51]

10As to the relationship between mental health and the current charges he opined:

“She was clearly acutely and floridly psychotic at the time of the alleged offending. There is clear evidence of bizarre behaviour in response to psychotic symptoms in the week or so before the alleged index offending."[5]

“Therefore, in my view, it is unclear if she knew the nature and quality of what she was doing (although she knew she was stabbing her husband, she believed he had been possessed by an evil spirit), but she clearly did not know that this conduct was wrong, that is, she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong (she believed that she had to purge the evil spirit due to her hallucinations and delusions, and her disorganised thinking and her abnormal perception of reality mean she was not able to reason in a rational way about the situation and her behaviour). So, in my view, [s]he has a mental impairment defence available, although obviously it is for the Court to decide whether [s]he is acquitted of the charges on the grounds of mental impairment.”[6]

[5]        Ibid at paragraph [54]

[6]        Ibid at paragraph [56]

11In response the prosecution obtained a Psychiatric Court Report from Dr Thavarajah dated 6 May 2025.[7] He is a psychiatric registrar employed by Forensicare and works under the supervision of Dr Gideon Dubow, consultant psychiatrist at Forensicare. Currently Dr Thavarajah is an advanced trainee in forensic psychiatry with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry.

[7]        Exhibit P2, report of Dr Harisaanth Thavarajah dated 6 May 2025

12Again it is unnecessary to discuss the contents of Dr Thavarajah reporting in detail. It outlined his assessment of Ms Yu’s personal medical and psychiatric history, lifestyle and psychosocial functioning as well as information obtained from collateral sources in relation to Ms Yu’s mental health history. It is also of significance that he reviewed her treatment notes while she was an impatient at both DPFC and Thomas Embling Hospital. It is also relevant to note that in February 2025 Ms Yu was granted bail and has been engaged with Broadmeadows Community Mental Health where she sees a psychiatrist and case manager regularly as an outpatient. She has a court integrated services program caseworker and is being treated by a psychologist under a mental health care plan.

13Overall he diagnosed Bipolar I Disorder with the most recent episode occurring at a time of severe depression with psychotic features.[8]  He considered a differential diagnosis to be that of schizoaffective disorder.[9]

[8]        Exhibit P2 at paragraph [49]

[9]        Ibid at paragraph [51]

14In considering the mental impairment defence as set out in s20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) (‘the Act’) he states:

” …It is my opinion that Ms Yu was suffering from an acute manic, depressive and psychotic episode in the context of Bipolar I Disorder, which would be considered a mental impairment and would satisfy the concept of the disease of the mind, within the meaning of the.. Act.”[10]

He went on:

“In relation to the alleged offence and on the balance of probabilities, based on Ms Yu’s account and the contemporaneous clinical documentation, while it is unclear whether Ms Yu knew the nature and quality of the conduct, it is my opinion that she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.”[11]

[10]        Ibid at paragraph [53]

[11]        Ibid at paragraph [55]

15He was of the overall opinion that the criteria for mental impairment defence under s20 of the Act was met.[12]

[12]        Ibid at paragraphs [60]-[61]

Consideration

16Having read the evidence I am satisfied that at the time of engaging in the conduct constituting the offence, Ms Yu was acting under a mental impairment most likely Bipolar I Disorder with a manic episode. I am also satisfied that the effect of this impairment was that Ms Yu could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether her conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong.

17It follows that the defence of mental impairment is established pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Act. I therefore direct a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded pursuant to s21(4)(a) of the Act.

18The parties agree it is appropriate that Ms Yu be continued on bail pending further investigation, the Court being satisfied that bail is appropriate.

ORDERS

19I make the following orders:

(a) I direct pursuant to s21(4) of the Act that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded in respect of the charge of causing serious injury intentionally on indictment Q11284087.1.

(b)   I grant bail to the accused on the same terms.

(c) I order the parties to obtain reports in accordance with s40, s41 and s42 of the Act.

(d)   I order that the matter be brought back for mention on 31 October 2025 at 10:00AM.