R v BS - [2019] NSWSC 935

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BS [2019] NSWSC 935
Hearing dates: 23 July 2019
Date of orders: 24 July 2019
Decision date: 24 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
Not guilty by reason of mental illness

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – killing of 5 year old boy by his father – defence of mental illness
Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
BS (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hobart SC (Crown)
M Johnston SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Streeton Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/179808
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This is a tragic case. The accused is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of his 5 year old son. There is no issue that he killed the child. He relies upon the defence of mental illness, and there is no issue about that either.

Facts

In written submissions by the Crown prosecutor there is a summary of the relevant facts, which are agreed. They are, in any event, established by the substantial evidentiary material in the Crown bundle which is in evidence. My recitation of the facts is drawn for the most part from those agreed facts.
The offence occurred in the morning of 8 June 2018 at the home where the accused lived with his partner and the deceased child, their son. The accused attacked the child brutally, causing his death, in the course of a psychotic episode.
The accused has a history of mental illness, having been diagnosed with schizophrenia in late 2003. Over the ensuing years there were a number of admissions to hospital, voluntary and involuntary, and he was under the care of Community Mental Health Services. He was prescribed medication in various forms, with which he was not always compliant, and he has been subject to a community treatment order. A detailed account of his condition and treatment in the period leading up to the offence is set out in the agreed facts.
On 19 April 2018 the accused attended Hornsby Hospital and was assessed by mental health professionals. The accused described “feeling pressured to save the world, having delusional thoughts involving the devil and difficulty sleeping”. He told the medical officers that “he wanted to sleep and pass away peacefully to save the world”. A consulting psychiatrist who examined him noted that he was suffering from “a relapse of psychoses.”
The accused was voluntarily admitted to hospital and he was prescribed an atypical antipsychotic, Aripiprazole. The first dose was administered on 1 May 2018. He had no side-effects and he consented to commencing a long acting injection. He had been on Quetiapine and his dose was increased to 300mg. During his admission his mental state improved.
However, his mental state deteriorated two days after his discharge.…

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 BS

Details

AGLC: R v BS [2019] NSWSC 935
Case: [2019] NSWSC 935
Decision Date: 24 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v BS was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. BS, the accused, faced charges related to the death of his five-year-old son. The central issue in the trial was whether the accused acted with the requisite mens rea for murder when he killed his son, and whether he could rely on a defence of mental illness to reduce the charge to manslaughter. The trial was conducted without a jury, and the judge was tasked with determining both the facts and the applicable law.

The court had to consider several key legal issues. First, it needed to assess whether the accused possessed the necessary intent to commit murder at the time of the killing. Second, it had to determine if the accused's mental state at the time of the offence could be classified as a mental illness that would reduce the charge to manslaughter under section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court also needed to evaluate the expert psychiatric evidence provided to establish the accused's mental condition.

The court found that the accused did not have the requisite intent to commit murder, as he acted under the influence of a severe mental illness. The judge accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused suffered from a delusional disorder which significantly impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. Given the substantial impact of the mental illness on the accused's actions, the court determined that the charge of murder could not be sustained. Instead, the court found the accused guilty of manslaughter. The judge considered the appropriate sentence, taking into account the tragic circumstances and the impact of the accused's mental illness.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the mitigating effect of the accused's mental illness. The court also made orders for psychiatric treatment to be provided to the accused during his incarceration.

Orders