R v BC - [2019] NSWSC 735

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BC [2019] NSWSC 735
Hearing dates: 11-14 June 2019
Date of orders: 14 June 2019
Decision date: 14 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
I make the following orders:

(1) I find BC not guilty of the murder of Scott Anthony Dickinson on the grounds of mental illness.

(2) Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I order that the accused be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.

(3) I direct the Registrar to notify the Attorney General, the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these orders as soon as practicable.
(4) The Registrar is to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of my reasons and of the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Adams.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – special hearing – mental health defence – psychiatric evidence – accused suffered defect of reasoning – accused unable to reason wrongfulness – accused mentally ill at time of offence – special verdict of not guilty – order pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Act (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Gourlay [2015] NSWSC 67
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
BC (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P W Kerr (Crown)
J Clarke (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/00263573
Publication restriction: The name is not published by virtue of s 162 of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: BC stands indicted with the murder of Scott Anthony Dickinson (“the deceased”), contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The murder is alleged to have occurred on 1 September 2016 at Albury in this State.
The accused first appeared before this Court on 4 August 2017. The matter did not proceed to arraignment, but was adjourned then and on a number of subsequent occasions, before, on 4 May 2018, the question of her fitness to be tried was raised.
On 2 August 2018, the accused was arraigned without a plea. Having had the benefit of expert opinion from Dr Richard Furst, consultant forensic psychiatrist and Dr Jonathan Adams, forensic psychiatrist, Wilson J found that the accused was not fit to be tried and was unlikely to become fit within a twelve month period. The accused was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
On 14 March 2019, the Mental Health Review Tribunal found that, for the purposes of ss 46 and 47…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v BC

Details

AGLC: R v BC [2019] NSWSC 735
Case: [2019] NSWSC 735
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defendant, R, who was charged with a criminal offence. The defendant raised a mental health defence, asserting that at the time of the alleged offence, they suffered from a defect of reasoning that rendered them incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of their actions or of acting in accordance with an appreciation of such wrongfulness. The case was heard in the relevant court, which had to determine the validity of the defence and the appropriate legal outcome. The central legal issue was whether the defendant could be held criminally responsible for their actions given their mental state at the time of the offence. The court had to assess the psychiatric evidence presented and determine if it sufficiently demonstrated that the defendant was unable to reason the wrongfulness of their actions due to a mental illness.

The court meticulously reviewed the psychiatric evidence, which established that the defendant had a significant defect of reasoning and was mentally ill at the time of the offence. The expert testimony confirmed that the defendant's mental condition precluded them from understanding the wrongfulness of their actions. Given this evidence, the court concluded that the defendant was not criminally responsible for the offence. The court then proceeded to deliver a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness, in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court further made an order under section 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, which mandates the defendant to receive appropriate treatment and care.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework and the psychiatric evidence provided. By finding the defendant not guilty on the basis of mental illness, the court recognised the necessity to address the defendant's mental health needs through appropriate treatment. This outcome balanced the need for public protection with the defendant's right to receive necessary mental health care. The court's decision was made with careful consideration of the legal principles and the factual circumstances of the case. The final orders included the special verdict of not guilty and the directive for the defendant to undergo treatment under the Mental Health Act.

Orders