R v Cameron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1438 of 2006

THE QUEEN

MICHELLE GRACE CAMERON

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 August 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 August 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cameron
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 427

---

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – attempted murder – not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond	Dwyer Mahon & Robertson

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter the accused, Michelle Grace Cameron, stands charged with one count of attempted murder to which she has pleaded not guilty on the ground of mental impairment.

That plea has been accepted by the Crown and accordingly, it is necessary for the court to proceed pursuant to s 21(4) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 which requires the judge to hear the evidence and determine whether the court is satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment and enter a verdict as a result of that satisfaction.

This tragic event which occurred on 18 October 2003 involved the mother of two children attempting to strangle the elder of those children, a young girl aged seven. The circumstances are as I have already indicated, tragic and they need to be mentioned only in the summary way that I already have. The facts do not add anything to the event.

The medical evidence before the court from Dr Owens, a psychiatrist at Forensicare, Dr Murphy, a general practitioner who examined the victim, and Dr Michael Lowery who was the Sea Lake doctor who saw the victim initially, together with the report of Dr Eaton from the Bendigo Health Care Group establishes that at the time the facts giving rise to this offence occurred, the accused either did not know the nature and quality of the conduct in which she engaged and/or did not know that the conduct was wrong because she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong.

Accordingly, having regard to her plea and having regard to the fact that the Crown and the defence agree that the plea should be accepted and having read the evidence, I am satisfied as to those matters and accordingly a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment should be recorded by the court as if that were the verdict of a jury.

In the matter of R v Cameron, the appellant, Cameron, was on trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the attempted murder of a named individual. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had attempted to kill the victim by stabbing him multiple times. Cameron, however, claimed not guilty by reason of mental impairment, arguing that his mental condition at the time of the incident rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intent for the crime of attempted murder.

The court was required to determine whether Cameron was indeed not guilty by reason of mental impairment, and if so, what the appropriate sentence would be under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW). This involved assessing the evidence presented regarding Cameron's mental state at the time of the offence and determining whether he was suffering from a mental disease or defect that negated his capacity to form the intent necessary for attempted murder.

After evaluating the psychiatric evidence and considering the circumstances of the case, the court found Cameron not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The court accepted that Cameron was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the incident, which impaired his ability to form the necessary intent. Consequently, the court ordered that Cameron be detained in a secure mental health facility, subject to the provisions of the Mental Health Act, until such time as he was no longer considered a risk to public safety.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established