R v Breckenridge

[2024] NSWSC 1522

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Breckenridge [2024] NSWSC 1522

Hearing dates:

27 November 2024

Date of orders:

28 November 2024

Decision date:

28 November 2024

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Rothman J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to the terms of s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), on the single count on the indictment, namely murder, a special verdict is entered and the Court orders that the act is proven and the accused, Matthew Robert Breckenridge, is not criminally responsible;

(2) Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act, the accused is to 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) Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act, the accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

(4)     The Registrar is to notify the Minister for Health of these orders within seven days hereof;

(5)     The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within seven days hereof;

(6)     Within seven days hereof, the Registrar is to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of these orders and the Reasons for Judgment, when they are available, and the psychiatric reports of Dr Olav Nielssen of 2 March 2023, 30 July 2024, and 31 October 2024, together with the psychiatric reports of Prof David Greenberg of 2 February 2024, 20 March 2024, 18 September 2024, and 10 November 2024; and

(7)     The Registrar is to notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the Reasons for Judgment, orders and exhibits in the proceedings to Justice Health within seven days hereof.

Catchwords:

CRIME – murder – defence of mental illness – accused fit to plead and stand trial – special verdict – act proven but accused not criminally responsible – orders made under ss 31, 33, and 34 of Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – where agreement on defence of mental health impairment – special verdict entered

Legislation Cited:

Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 28, 31, 33, 34

Texts Cited:

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Matthew Robert Breckenridge (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
J Stanhope (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Accused)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Wade Law (Accused)

File Number(s):

2022/375032

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Matthew Robert Breckenridge has been indicted for murder and charged with killing Scott Parrott on 12 December 2022. The accused has pleaded not guilty on the basis that he was not responsible for his actions as a result of mental illness.

2. On 27 November 2024, the accused was again arraigned before the Court and the Court received evidence relating to the circumstances of the manner in which Mr Parrott died, the mental illness of the accused and the impact of these events on the family and friends of the deceased.

3. The manner in which Mr Parrott died is captured on CCTV footage. The facts, in that and other respects, are agreed between the Crown and the accused.

4. On 12 December 2022, the deceased, Mr Parrott, was 39 years of age. He will never see his 40^th birthday. On that date, the accused, was 27 years of age.

5. About 4:30pm on 12 December 2022, the accused attended the Newcastle Community Corrections office in King Street Newcastle. He was greeted by staff members and the accused indicated that he had an appointment with Ms Karayanidis. She was unavailable, which was explained to the accused who was informed that she would telephone him.

6. Apparently, the staff at the Community Corrections Office considered the accused looked tired or under the influence of a drug. The accused was blinking slowly, falling asleep in the waiting room and acting abruptly when he left the office.

7. The accused left the office and boarded a light rail towards the Newcastle Interchange. At the Interchange, the accused boarded a train heading towards Maitland. He went to the front carriage.

8. Coincidentally, the deceased had boarded the rear carriage of the same train at Hamilton Railway Station. Another passenger, with whom he interacted, noticed that the deceased smelt of alcohol. The accused looked serious and was staring around. The accused left the station at Beresfield. So too did the deceased. The accused and the deceased were previously not known to each other.

9. As already stated, Beresfield Railway Station is fitted with a CCTV system. After alighting, the accused ran up the stairs to a pedestrian overpass and walked to an elevator, which transfers people between the overpass and a platform.

10. The accused was talking on his phone to Ms Karayanidis. An independent third witness followed the accused up the stairs and turned right at the overpass intending to leave the station. The deceased was behind both the accused and the witness.

11. The remainder of what occurred is available on the CCTV footage and the Court has viewed photographs from that footage, which depict the events. As the deceased climbed the stairs, the accused put his phone into his pocket and approached the top of the stairs.

12. As the deceased was climbing the stairs, the accused looked closely at him before kicking him directly, and with force, in the head from a raised position. The accused pushed the deceased down the staircase until the deceased was lying horizontally across the stairs.

13. The accused then braced himself on the handrail of the stairs and used the rear of his right heel to stomp forcefully on the accused’s head and neck area nine times. The assault lasted a total of 22 seconds. The accused then ran up the stairs and off the overpass. A witness took photographs of the accused as he was running away.

14. Two people sought to assist the deceased; one of them was one of the persons to whom earlier reference has been made. The deceased was bleeding from facial injuries and, while he appeared to be initially breathing, the deceased became unresponsive. The emergency number for an ambulance was called and the witnesses attempted to perform CPR and to stem the bleeding.

15. An ambulance officer arrived at the scene at about 6.00pm and made efforts to resuscitate the deceased, which were unsuccessful. The deceased was declared life extinct at the scene. A post-mortem by a forensic pathologist expressed the opinion, which the Court accepts, that the death of the deceased was caused by complications following blunt force craniofacial trauma.

16. The accused was observed to the north of the railway station and was running and waving his hands. He ran towards a train. Police officers, including a canine unit attended the scene and searched for the accused. The accused was eventually located and arrested. At the time, the accused was hiding on the outside of a carriage of a stationary train near the station.

17. The accused was restrained. Initially, the accused appeared compliant but began to behave erratically and refused to acknowledge directions. He was gnashing his teeth in the direction of the arresting officer. As he was moved away from the location in which he was found, the accused shouted towards the sky a number of times and referred to “racist dogs”. He alternated between conversations with the arresting Police and growling or snarling.

18. It is unnecessary to deal with the investigation of the offence. It is sufficient to note that the accused did not recall assaulting the deceased, when asked, and maintained, initially, that he was not involved in the assault.

19. The accused’s hotel room was searched and a small plastic bottle containing a small amount of liquid methylamphetamine, two syringes and a box marked “Clopixol Depot” were located, all of it in the name of the accused.

The Accused’s Mental State

20. The accused has been examined by two psychiatrists: one commissioned by the Crown; and one commissioned by the legal representatives of the accused. Each of those psychiatrists agrees that a defence of mental impairment under s 28 of the Mental Health & Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) is available.

21. Section 28 of the statute allows for a special verdict where a person is not criminally responsible for an offence. A person is not criminally responsible if, at the time the offence occurred, or the conduct that otherwise would constitute the offence occurred, a person had a mental health impairment that had the effect that the perpetrator did not know the nature and quality of the act performed or did not know that the act was wrong. In the latter sense, the person is required to be in a situation where the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

22. In these proceedings, the Court is to be satisfied that the circumstances of the accused are such that the provisions of s 28 apply to him and, if so, those provisions require the Court to make orders accordingly. For that purpose, it is necessary for the Court to deal, very briefly, with the various reports of the two expert psychiatrists.

23. The Court has before it numerous reports. The psychiatrist qualified by the Crown, Professor David Greenberg, compiled an initial report on 2 February 2024, a Supplementary Report of 20 March 2024, a Second Supplementary Report of 18 September 2024 and a Third Supplementary Report of 10 November 2024. The psychiatrist qualified by the defence team, Dr Olav Nielssen, compiled an initial report on 2 March 2023, a Second Report on 30 July 2024, and a Third Report on 31 October 2024. There is substantial agreement between the two experts.

24. It is important to understand that the psychiatric history of the accused did not commence with, and was not confined to, the conduct giving rise to the death of Mr Parrott. While the accused was unaware of a family history of mental illness, at least initially, and had what the accused described as a “privileged upbringing”, he had up to 11 admissions to psychiatric hospitals over the years, two in Canada and the rest in Australia, including both New South Wales and Victoria.

25. The accused had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been receiving treatment with weekly injections as a condition of a 12 month Community Treatment Order (CTO), but was suffering ongoing symptoms despite treatment.

26. The accused had been admitted to the Mater Hospital from 17 June 2022 to 26 July 2022, followed by four weeks in a drug rehabilitation centre and a further four weeks of abstinence, but relapsed. The accused’s financial affairs were under the control of the Protective Office.

27. In March 2023, Dr Nielssen diagnosed the accused as having persistent psychotic illness (schizophrenia) and substance use disorder. Dr Nielssen described the symptoms suffered by the accused as “a typical pattern of treatment for schizophrenia with numerous admissions to psychiatric hospitals and treatment by long-acting injection as a condition of CTO”. Dr Nielssen described the mental impairment issues in the following passage:

“From the available information, I believe Mr Breckenridge has the defence of mental impairment…open to him for this offence. He has a severe form of mental impairment in the form of a chronic form of psychotic illness, which during acute episodes presents with vivid auditory hallucinations and a range of grandiose beliefs and delusions of reference, as well as impairment in the ability to recognise that those experiences were a manifestation of acute mental illness. At the time of the offence, I believe he was deprived of the ability to recognise that his actions were wrong.

…[H]is condition is a chronic and severe form of mental illness and is not solely due to the effect of a substance use disorder.

Mr Breckenridge would be also able to raise the defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, as his mental illness is an underlying condition that gave rise to an abnormality of the mind…In the period immediately before the lethal assault Mr Breckenridge had persecutory delusional beliefs regarding Mr Parrott affecting his perception of the events and his knowledge of right and wrong. The impairment in the capacity for logical thinking arising from his untreated psychotic illness is likely to have affected his ability to exercise normal self-control. However, in my opinion, the defence of mental impairment would be a more appropriate finding, given the severity of his impairment, and the guarantee of indefinite treatment in the event of that verdict.

Mr Breckenridge was assessed to be on balance fit to enter a plea and to be fit for trial, and should remain fit provided he continues to receive adequate treatment for his mental illness.”

28. Dr Nielssen expressed the opinion that the accused required long-term treatment by a forensic mental health service with antipsychotic medication and supervision of abstinence from drugs known to exacerbate mental illness. As one would expect, Prof Greenberg dealt with much of the material that Dr Nielssen referenced.

29. Prof Greenberg recounted the accused’s account of the allegations against him, his past psychiatric history and past medical history, his drug and alcohol history and his family and personal history. Prof Greenberg also examined the Crown brief of material and the accused’s criminal history from the bail reports supplied to him by the Crown. In a similar vein to Dr Nielssen, Prof Greenberg dealt with the accused’s past psychiatric history and his history of admissions, which Prof Greenberg particularised in greater detail than did Dr Nielssen.

30. Prof Greenberg also referred to the Electronic Record of Interview of Suspected Persons (ERISP) of the accused and the witness statements of a number of the witnesses some of whom have been the subject of earlier reference.

31. After setting out the criteria for diagnosis of schizophrenia as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for schizophrenia and substance use disorder, Prof Greenberg concluded that the accused’s behavioural manifestations at the time of the offence were likely driven by a combination of both psychotic symptoms and his propensity for underlying adult antisocial behaviour. According to Prof Greenberg, the accused qualifies for a defence based on a mental health impairment as a consequence of schizophrenic disorder which, as may be obvious, is a mental illness with psychotic symptoms.

32. Prof Greenberg was of the view, as was Dr Nielssen, that the provisions of s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act were satisfied and that the relevant defence was available. The accused, according to Prof Greenberg, did not know that the act he was engaged in was “wrong” and, in that sense, could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

33. In his Supplementary Report, Prof Greenberg dealt with the two issues relevant to the proceedings before the Court, namely, whether there should be a finding that the offence is “proven but the accused is not criminally responsible” or whether there should be a conviction for the offence of manslaughter based upon substantial impairment. Understandably, these are issues which, in the opinion of the Professor, are matters for the Court. Nevertheless, because of comments that were made in the victim impact statements, it may be appropriate to refer to some comments of Prof Greenberg in relation to the effect of each such finding.

34. If the Court would have made a finding that the offence was proven but the accused was not criminally responsible, the likely impact would be that the accused would undergo a formal risk assessment with a formal risk management assessment as a forensic patient. In all likelihood, he would be housed at a Forensic Hospital, being a health facility managed by NSW Health. His prognosis would depend on numerous factors, including compliance with psychiatric treatment and his response to psychiatric treatment. Ultimately, it would be a matter for the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal as to whether he would ever be subject to transition back into the community and if so, when, and the degree of supervision that would accompany such transition.

35. If, on the other hand, there were a finding of manslaughter based upon substantial impairment, the accused would remain in custody and his mental health needs would be provided by Justice Health. Each of these expert psychiatrists are extremely experienced and well-known to the Court. I accept the opinions they express.

36. As is clear from each of the reports, the accused suffers from chronic, partly treatment resistant, schizophrenia and from substance abuse disorder, the latter being in remission. The diagnoses by the psychiatrists who have reported to the Court, prove irrefragably that the accused is capable of pleading and fit to plead to the charge before the Court; that he understands generally the nature of the proceedings before the Court and his role as alleged in the conduct that gave rise to the alleged offence; would have difficulty in understanding and interpreting what might be said and done in the court and difficulty in providing instructions; would understand the substantial effect of evidence given against him; and, could make a defence relating to the charge.

37. There are serious concerns about the accused’s capacity to provide legal representatives with reliable instructions. Most importantly, I am satisfied on the basis of the psychiatric reports that the accused is fit to plead and stand trial; suffers from a major psychiatric illness, being chronic schizophrenia with residual psychotic symptoms, which are partly treatment resistant, together with substance use disorder in remission; that, as a consequence of his schizophrenia, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct in which he engaged that led to the death of Mr Parrott, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong; and, therefore, pursuant to the terms of s 28 of the Act, is not criminally responsible for the offence that otherwise would have been committed.

38. The foregoing finding does not rely upon substance abuse disorder. Nor does it involve the proposition that the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act in which he was engaged.

Remarks

39. As expressed during the course of the proceedings, circumstances such as those now before the Court are particularly problematic for the family of the victim. The death of Mr Parrott is wholly tragic. The violence perpetrated against him has no motivation and was caused by the psychotic illness suffered by the accused.

40. The hurt suffered by the family of the victim is manifest from the victim impact statements, which are before the Court. Victim impact statements have been provided by the deceased’s mother, his father and stepfather, and two younger sisters. Setting aside, for present purposes, the necessary anger and emotion expressed by each of them, it is clear that the impact on their lives, on a day-to-day basis, has been profound.

41. The deceased’s mother is unable to return to full-time employment. She does not feel safe even to go out and socialise. Nor does she feel safe even going for a walk by herself. As a parent, this is the worst nightmare. Further, the deceased’s mother must deal with the terrifying effect on her other two children.

42. The deceased’s stepfather corroborated the devastating impact upon their family. He refers to the deceased’s mother waking in the night screaming or sobbing; or, during the day, in her depression, sitting on the floor, looking at the deceased’s memorial. The impact of the death on the others, as well as on the parents and step-father, is heartbreaking.

39. The deceased’s father has referred to the impact of his son’s murder on his own mental health and the aggravating features every time any noteworthy anniversary or birthday comes around. It has also had an impact upon his own relationships and he has sought to cope with those issues by drinking more alcohol which, in turn, exacerbates the issues further. The deceased’s father barely sleeps; stays in the lounge room throughout the night; and has lost work due to depression.

40. As one can imagine, the impact upon the deceased’s two younger sisters has been extremely profound. Each of them refers to his place in the family, the many friends he enjoyed and, in the case of one of them, the relationship he had with her children.

41. The toll that the death of the deceased has had on his whole family and his friends, has been agonising. It is not unusual that every day events trigger a reliving of the traumatic experience of being informed of the death of their son and brother. These issues are a reflection of the love and esteem each of his family members had for the deceased, particularly as a result of the fact that he grew up with an intellectual disability.

42. Murder is the most serious offence in the criminal calendar. Australian society treats the sanctity of human life as paramount and every family of every victim of such a violent crime suffers as a consequence. So too does society.

43. The criminal law is based upon the proposition that humankind has free will. We have the capacity to choose not to do that which is wrong and choose to protect others.

44. However, the criminal law and society recognise that there are exceptions to the capacity to exercise free will. Sometimes it is because we are defending ourselves or others whom we love; other times it is as a result of exceptional or extreme provocation. In this case, it is because the perpetrator of the wrong suffers from a mental illness which, at the time, prevented him from understanding the ordinary concepts of wrong as the rest of us perceive them.

45. The result is that the perpetrator is required to be dealt with in a forensic facility. Once these orders are made, the Mental Health Review Tribunal cannot release the accused, unless it is satisfied that the safety of the patient or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by the patient’s release. Often, this will result in an accused who is subject to an order of this kind being the subject of detention in a forensic facility for a period longer than would be the case were the perpetrator sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

46. Nevertheless, the manner in which the accused will be treated hereafter is a matter for the Mental Health Review Tribunal, pursuant to the provisions to which reference has already been made. In the meantime, it is for the Court to make orders to give effect to that regime and the findings of fact, particularly relating to the mental health of the accused, to which the Court has referred.

47. The Court makes the following orders:

1. Pursuant to the terms of s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), on the single count on the indictment, namely murder, a special verdict is entered and the Court orders that the act is proven and the accused, Matthew Robert Breckenridge, is not criminally responsible;

2. Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act, the accused is to 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. Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act, the accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

4. The Registrar is to notify the Minister for Health of these orders within seven days hereof;

5. The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within seven days hereof;

6. Within seven days hereof, the Registrar is to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of these orders and the Reasons for Judgment, when they are available, and the psychiatric reports of Dr Olav Nielssen of 2 March 2023, 30 July 2024, and 31 October 2024, together with the psychiatric reports of Prof David Greenberg of 2 February 2024, 20 March 2024, 18 September 2024, and 10 November 2024; and

7. The Registrar is to notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the Reasons for Judgment, orders and exhibits in the proceedings to Justice Health within seven days hereof.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 November 2024