R v Clarke - [2023] NSWSC 1360

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Clarke [2023] NSWSC 1360
Hearing dates: 17 October 2023
Date of orders: 17 October 2023
Decision date: 10 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) In relation to each of the two counts, a special verdict is entered, pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), namely that the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible;
(2) Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Paul Clarke 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 2020 (NSW), Paul Clarke is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;
(4)   The Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days;
(5)   The Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days;
(6)   The Registrar provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of these orders and the reasons for judgment when they are available and the exhibits within 7 days;
(7)   The Registrar notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the reasons for judgment and orders and exhibits to Justice Health within 7 days;
(8) The Court directs that a copy of the Victim Impact Statements be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) within 7 days.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Murder – defence of mental health – fit to be tried – special verdict – acts constituting offence proved but accused not criminally responsible – orders made under s 31 and s 34 of Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – person fit to be tried – agreement between Crown and legally-represented accused – facts proved but accused not criminally responsible for conduct

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30N(4)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 31, 33, 34

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Paul Clarke (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Shaw (Crown)
M Avenell SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Matouk Joyner Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/312360; 2021/337248

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Some criminal proceedings are particularly moving and sad. Paul Clarke killed two people, Allen Lambert on 2 November 2021 and Kevin Byrne on 23 November 2021. Mr Byrne was killed while Mr Clarke was an inmate at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (“MRRC”) while Mr Clarke was on remand on the charge of murdering Mr Lambert.
The circumstances of the deaths of Mr Lambert and Mr Byrne are particularly tragic, in the strict sense of the term, in that the killing of each of Mr Lambert and Mr Byrne was the result of the psychiatric condition from which Mr Clarke suffered. The circumstance that Mr Clarke suffered a mental illness which led to these killings and the death of two innocent persons, while containing all of the sadness and tragedy associated with any violent death, also prevents the families of the victims from the same degree of closure that occurs when a person is held responsible for such a violent death. The Victim Impact Statements, presented to the Court during the proceedings, bring that home poignantly.
It is necessary to deal with the circumstances of each charge. Mr Paul Clarke is charged with murder. Proceedings number 2021/312360 are proceedings in which Mr Paul Clarke is charged with the murder of Allen Lambert. Proceedings number 2021/337249 are proceedings relating to the charge of murder preferred against Mr Paul Clarke in relation to the death of Kevin Byrne. To each charge, Mr Clarke pleaded not guilty because he was not criminally responsible by reason of mental or cognitive impairment.
In relation to the first of those charges, the accused, Paul Clarke, worked as a labourer on a house being constructed in Chittaway Bay, New South Wales. The deceased, Mr Lambert, lived in the same street with his wife and granddaughter.
In late September 2021, the accused was seen walking back and forth along the street in the direction of the Lambert home, not wearing a shirt. In late October 2021, the accused mentioned to a friend, as part of a rant, that he intended to “take out” that “old bloke next to” the house in which he was working.
On 1 November 2021, an anonymous informant contacted police and reported that the accused had posted videos on Instagram of him behaving strangely and reported that the accused was psychotic, unpredictable, and erratic. Apparently, the accused believed he was in the SAS and undertaking training, or working for Channel 7. Police attended the accused’s address but were unable to speak with him as he did not seem to be there.
On 2 November 2021, the day of the killing, the accused made incoherent recordings on his phone, while talking about many topics. He filmed an older gentleman at a bus stop and talked about attacking him. He also mentioned “Allen” (the name of the deceased). Some recordings seemed to be directed to Allen and referred to the accused “kicking [Allen’s] door in and get rid of yas” [sic].
At 8:44 PM, the accused entered the home of the deceased by smashing it with a baseball bat. The deceased called for his wife to call police as she took their grandchild to a safer room. She returned to see the accused repeatedly bashing the deceased with a baseball bat on the head. The deceased’s wife told him to stop. She saw the accused hit the deceased about 20 times. The accused then fled.
CCTV recordings show the accused had been in the home for no more than 23 seconds. Police attended and found the deceased in a critical condition but still conscious. He died later that day in hospital, having sustained bleeding into the airway, intracranial injury, life-threatening head injury, and an airway haemorrhage. The deceased died of a cardiac arrest as result of those injuries.
On 3 November 2021, the accused continued to act strangely. He was ranting about paedophiles and people getting “bashed”. Police conducted surveillance of the accused that day as he acted in a manic fashion. He carried his baseball bat and made comments, which he recorded, about how he had not even scratched the paint on it. He referred to the environs as “his town”, which he needed to protect.
Later that day, police arrested the accused and searched his premises. The accused attempted to run from police and to throw away the baseball bat, before being apprehended. The bat was recovered from a hedge and DNA from the bat matched both the accused and the deceased.
After his arrest, the accused was on remand at MRRC, Silverwater. He was accommodated in Pod 15. Kevin Byrne, the deceased in the second murder charge, was also in Pod 15 on remand. He had pleaded not guilty to certain sexual offences and his family, in their Victim Impact Statements, maintained his innocence of the charges originally preferred against him.
On 23 November 2021, prisoners were let out of their cells into the Pod. The accused went directly to the deceased’s cell. The accused was wearing disposable gloves. He met the deceased outside his cell and ushered him inside.
Eight minutes later, CCTV footage captures the accused leaving the deceased’s cell, but no longer wearing the gloves. He returned to the cell a few times after that, for short periods. When he emerged for the final time, he was carrying a white object, which he threw into a bin. The accused then removed the bin contents and liner and gave it to another inmate to dispose of it. During one of the entries back into the cell, the accused killed the deceased.
The deceased was found at 11:15 AM. Blunt force injuries had been inflicted. The deceased also suffered abrasions and bruising to the face as well as bruising to the internal neck and fractures to both hyoid bones. The pathologist, who later conducted the autopsy, concluded that this was consistent with obstruction of the upper airway or external pressure on the neck. A fracture of the hyoid bone is usually consistent with strangulation. The deceased later made admissions to forensic psychiatrists about this offence.
As earlier indicated, on 17 October 2023, when the matter first came before the Court as presently constituted, the Court entered a special verdict pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”), namely, that the act is proved, but the accused is not criminally responsible and the accused was ordered to be detained in a correctional facility, or such other place determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released in accordance with the law.
It is necessary to deal with the reasons that the special verdict was entered, being the reasons that the accused was held not criminally responsible for the acts committed which led to the death of each of the deceased. The Court has before it psychiatric evidence relating to the accused. I shall seek to summarise those reports.
Dr Sathish Dayalan, Forensic Psychiatrist, compiled a report on 4 July 2022 and a supplementary report on 11 April 2023. In the report of 4 July 2022, Dr Dayalan noted that he first saw the accused on 18 March 2022 via audio visual link (AVL). At the time that Dr Dayalan saw the accused, he was in custody at the High Dependency Unit of the Mental Health Screening Unit of his correctional centre.
The accused told Dr Dayalan that he had been “angry” and self-harming at age 15 but could not articulate why. He said that at age 18, he sought mental health treatment due to realising that something was wrong with him. The accused further reported that he had been psychotic at age 20, when he spent some time as an inpatient at Wyong Hospital. The accused said that he had been taking cannabis but no other drugs at the time. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed antipsychotic medicine, quetiapine.
Dr Dayalan elicited a history of manic episodes associated with grandiose and referential delusions. These delusions were often associated with alcohol use and would last for weeks. There was a history of a sexual assault in 2018, which the accused stated had taken place while he was under the influence of methylamphetamine and MDMA. The accused stated that this was very distressing for him. The accused spoke about having been administered lip fillers and drugs which led to him almost dying.
As for the offences, the accused denied substance abuse in the period preceding the murders but accepted that he had been drinking heavily in that period. Further, the accused had not taken antipsychotic medications for several years.
The accused told Dr Dayalan that a close friend had recently committed suicide and he thought he was receiving messages through his television. While he stated that his memory of the offending and that time in general, was vague, he did recall believing that Mr Lambert was a paedophile, after having seen him in a park. He did not recall why he had killed Mr Lambert but stated that he was not thinking straight and was hearing voices.
As to the offence against Mr Byrne, the accused told Dr Dayalan that there had been not much change in his mental state. He had continued to experience auditory hallucinations and receive messages from the television. He had not been sleeping well. The accused thought that Mr Byrne was a paedophile and rapist and “everybody wanted him gone”.
Dr Dayalan noted, in this report, that the accused was now medicated and more stable. The accused had been prescribed depot and oral antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. He denied experiencing auditory hallucinations, but occasional referential beliefs were noted.
Dr Dayalan also commented on the accused’s medical records. These records bear out the accused’s significant history of mental health problems, particularly in the file held by Justice Health.
Records as far back as 2012 refer to the accused’s belief that he had several voices in his head, including an “alter-ego” called Dilmah. According to the records, the accused had said that he had a good side and a second person inside him called Dilmah.
There were also reports of self-harm. Dr Dayalan had assessed the accused on 4 August 2014 and diagnosed a borderline personality disorder. Justice Health records following the relevant offences show that the accused had continued, on and off, to present as thought-disordered and showing delusional beliefs.
Dr Dayalan reviewed the accused’s recordings on his mobile phone, which were recovered on his arrest for the murder of Mr Lambert. Dr Dayalan’s view was that the videos depicted thought disorder. Dr Dayalan further commented on letters from the accused’s girlfriend and mother, which described his behaviour in the period preceding the offending as “very bizarre”. The accused believed he was in charge of the COVID lockdowns; was eating tree leaves and worms; and purportedly believed that the Government had “hacked” his phone. His mother reported that she had been attempting to have him hospitalised for the preceding seven months.
In Dr Dayalan’s opinion, the accused was fit to stand trial, despite having some gaps in his insight into his psychiatric condition. Dr Dayalan diagnosed the accused with schizoaffective disorder, as well as cannabis and alcohol use disorders, which appeared to be currently in remission in a controlled environment.
The psychotic symptoms appeared to be largely in remission, but, given the accused’s history of guarded presentation and reluctance to disclose psychotic symptoms, Dr Dayalan could not rule out ongoing residual symptoms. Dr Dayalan also expressed the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to consider the defence of mental health impairment.
As to the accused’s further treatment, Dr Dayalan stated that it is unlikely that he will warrant ongoing treatment at an inpatient psychiatric unit, unless there is further deterioration in his mental state. However, Dr Dayalan also stated that, as the accused has problems with insight and given the seriousness of risks associated with the accused becoming unwell, it is extremely important that the accused receives ongoing treatment and medication.
In his supplementary report of 11 April 2023, Dr Dayalan noted that the accused had been transferred to the Goulburn Correctional Centre and was continuing his medication regime. The accused accepted that he was suffering from a chronic psychotic illness and that he required ongoing treatment with psychiatric medication. He disclosed to Dr Dayalan further details about the offence against Mr Byrne, namely that he called the victim a dirty rapist. In response, the victim had allegedly spat at him and the accused “karate chopped” him.
Dr Dayalan describes some other material available to him, which was relevant to the accused, including recent Justice Health records. Dr Dayalan adhered to his diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and said that this can be classified as a psychotic illness and an affective disorder as it has both psychotic and affective features. He did not attribute the presentation to substance use, as the accused had continued to exhibit psychotic symptoms for a number of months, whilst reportedly abstinent from substances, including while in custody.
While Dr Dayalan did not consider that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his criminal acts, Dr Dayalan did consider that the accused held a number of delusional beliefs around the time of the alleged offences.
A number of the delusions to which reference has just been made were grandiose in nature and the accused had felt responsible for the welfare and/or safety of the community. Dr Dayalan said that in the accused’s psychotic state of mind, he had decided to “take out” the individuals identified as paedophiles. He had believed both victims were paedophiles. He had also believed that the father of one of the victims had killed his uncle at that time but, after improvement in his mental state, the accused no longer believed this to be true.
Dr Dayalan said that the accused was probably not able to reason the moral wrongfulness of his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure.
Another report that it is necessary to summarise is that of Dr Kerri Eagle, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist. Dr Eagle’s report, dated 9 June 2023, is also comprehensive. She assessed the accused on 16 May 2023, also by audio visual link.
Dr Eagle noted that the accused was 32 years’ old and in a romantic relationship with a woman. The relationship had commenced about two years before the accused’s arrest. There had been a previous relationship, giving rise to one child, a son. Prior to his arrest, the accused had been living with his mother and brother. His brother reportedly has Down’s Syndrome.
In terms of the accused’s presentation on assessment, Dr Eagle said that he did not describe any odd experiences in custody or experiences that were consistent with persistent psychotic phenomena. The accused stated that his medication had stopped him from hearing voices.
The accused told Dr Eagle that in 2018 he was drugged and raped while not taking his medication. The accused had said that the rapist had put lip filler into his lips “to make [him] look gay” and that “they were trying to cover up what they done [sic] by making me look gay”.
The accused stated that while living with his mother, there were ups and downs. The accused’s mother was trying to seek help for him, but he was too unwell. The accused admitted to being manic and not listening to anything his mother said. The accused said that he was not sleeping, and his lifestyle involved excessive training and excessive drinking. He described the voices he was hearing, some of which were friendly and some of which were hostile. The accused sensed that he felt that he was special, but he was out of control.
The accused told Dr Eagle about his history of mental illness, including the voices “Dilmah” and “Paul” who were the “bad” and “good” voices in his head. The accused stated that he had periods of feeling like he was not in control of his actions.
The accused readily admitted that when he was medicated, these symptoms completely abated, but when he ceased medication, they became severe. The accused reported a suicide attempt in 2018. Dr Eagle’s report summarised the medical records and documents available, which had also been summarised by Dr Dayalan.
As to the offences, the accused told Dr Eagle that things had been spiralling out of control since Christmas 2020. The accused said that he felt he was receiving encrypted messages, which he felt were real. On 2 November 2021, he had been drinking. He did not recall the videos that he recorded on that day, due to the volume of recordings that he was making about that time.
The accused did agree that he had a hatred of paedophiles. The accused did not recall thinking about Mr Lambert or obtaining a baseball bat. Vaguely, the accused remembered the day after the offending, but professed not to recall the killing of Mr Lambert or any relevant events surrounding it.
Conversely, the accused was able to offer some detail about the murder of Mr Byrne. He told Dr Eagle that he was still very manic after entering custody.
In the report, Dr Eagle noted that the video ERISP (Electronic Recorded Interview of Suspected Person), taken upon arrest, depicted what Dr Eagle considered were signs that the accused was mentally unwell and having difficulty understanding basic concepts, even though he seemed composed. The accused said that voices on the TV were telling him to harm paedophiles. He said he had only seen one nurse since coming into custody, due to being locked in with COVID restrictions.

Presumably, the accused remained unmedicated and he said he went to confront Mr Byrne about his paedophilia and that “Dilmah” was talking to him.
The accused told Dr Eagle that when Mr Byrne spat at him, the accused karate-chopped Mr Byrne in the neck. He said he returned to the cell several times to make sure Mr Byrne was all right and only later discovered that he was dead. The accused stated to Dr Eagle that he did not intend to kill Mr Byrne.
On mental state examination, Dr Eagle found the accused to be polite and appropriate, although restricted in affect. He was logical and consistent in form, although he retained some odd ideas in the possible form of memories of delusions, such as being drugged by peers who put filler in his lips to make him “look gay”.
The accused denied ongoing delusions and could acknowledge that past delusions, while they still seemed real in his mind, were part of his illness. Importantly, the accused accepted he had a mental illness and the need for treatment.
Dr Eagle diagnosed the accused as having schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, as well as substance use disorder, in remission in a controlled environment. Dr Eagle considered that, at the time of the offending, the accused displayed signs and symptoms of a severe psychotic episode with manic features consistent with a relapse of schizoaffective disorder. Dr Eagle said that in her opinion, the accused would satisfy the criteria for a mental health impairment. While Dr Eagle accepted that the accused was aware of the physical nature of his actions, she said that the accused was unable to reason with any degree of composure as to the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the alleged murders.
Overall, Dr Eagle said that the accused has been reported to be guarded with the ability to mask symptoms of psychosis. She found him to be guarded during the interview, though he likely had some persistent referential ideation with only partial or fluctuating insight.

Submissions

Submissions have been provided in writing by both the Crown and counsel for the accused. The Crown has noted that the accused has been assessed as fit to stand trial and that the parties have agreed that the expert medical evidence establishes that a defence of mental health impairment is available on the balance of probabilities.
The Crown summarised the relevant principles of law and applicable facts from the Agreed Facts and applied to them the principles otherwise articulated. The Crown also summarised the expert reports.
For obvious reasons, it is unnecessary to repeat those submissions. The Crown sought, in effect, the orders that were made at the hearing and sought, after entry of the special verdict, that the Court receive into evidence Victim Impact Statements pursuant to s 30L of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
The submissions on behalf of the accused confirmed that he did not object to the tender bundle of the Crown; that he agreed that a defence of mental impairment is open and should be entered; and asked for an additional order, which the Court entered on the last occasion.

Consideration

It is necessary to repeat the terms of s 31 of the Act. It confers upon the Court the power at any time to enter a special verdict of an act proved and for which the person charged is not criminally responsible. The Court may enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, if the defendant and the prosecutor agree that the proposed evidence in the proceedings establishes a defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment; the defendant is represented by a legal practitioner; and the Court, after considering the evidence, is satisfied that the defence is so established.
The terms of s 31 confer a power on the Court which is conditioned on the satisfaction of each of the matters to which reference has been made. In this case, the Court is satisfied that a defence has been established in accordance with the provisions of s 31 and that mental health impairment is a schizophrenic disorder or a schizoaffective disorder. Plainly, there is agreement between the Crown and the accused as to the appropriate disposition of the charge.
In accordance with that satisfaction, the Court, on 17 October 2023, entered a special verdict pursuant to s 31 of the Act, namely that the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible and did so in relation to each of the murders charged. The satisfaction of the Court is reached in the context that the evidence establishes a defence of mental health impairment and that there is agreement between the Crown and the defendant to that effect. As is obvious from the proceedings, the accused was represented by counsel and solicitor, each of whom is an Australian legal practitioner.
It should be pointed out that a mental health impairment is defined in the Act as a temporary or ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory, which would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and which impairs the emotional well-being, judgement or behaviour of the person affected by it. Further to the foregoing, a person with such a mental health impairment is not criminally responsible if, at the time of carrying out, in this case, the murders, the person had a mental health impairment that had the effect that at the time of committing the act, the person did not know that their actions were wrong.
In that sense, the failure to understand the wrongfulness of the act requires the person not to be able to reason, with a moderate degree of sense and composure, about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. This involves two limbs: first, that the accused, at the time of carrying out the act constituting the murders, had a mental health impairment; and, secondly, that the relevant impairment had the effect to which the Court has already referred.
Plainly, on the psychiatric evidence available to the Court, the accused had developed through his mental health impairment and/or disorder, a mental delusion in which he was possessed of a delusional belief pertaining to each of the deceased and to his own authority to act against the deceased “in protection of the community”.
At the outset of these reasons for judgment I indicated the tragic nature of the events in question. It is difficult for the family of the victims to receive even the same kind of closure that comes from criminal proceedings that would ordinarily occur. This is because, despite the violent nature of the deaths of each of the deceased, no one has been held responsible for their deaths. Nevertheless, mental illness of this kind must be understood to take the perpetrator of such acts outside the ordinary criminal justice system.
It should be understood by all that an order of this kind does not mean that the accused, Mr Clarke, goes free. An order of this kind requires Mr Clarke to remain in custody and be held as a forensic patient under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
In some instances, such custody can be for a longer period than would otherwise be the case were Mr Clarke or a person in his position to have been sentenced and held responsible. Mr Clarke will remain as a forensic patient under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal until the Tribunal is satisfied that the safety of the accused or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by his release.
Mr Clarke’s case will be reviewed as soon as practicable and thereafter at six-monthly intervals. If Mr Clarke is ever released, it may be with conditions and if any of those conditions were to be breached or his mental condition were to deteriorate and he became a serious danger to others, the Tribunal could order that he be apprehended and again detained, until the Tribunal was satisfied that the safety of the community was not, again, seriously endangered by his release.
For the foregoing reasons, on 17 October 2023, the Court, as presently constituted, made the following orders and directions:

In relation to each of the two counts, a special verdict is entered, pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), namely that the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible;

Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Paul Clarke 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;

Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Paul Clarke is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

The Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days;

The Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days;

The Registrar provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of these orders and the reasons for judgment when they are available and the exhibits within 7 days;

The Registrar notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the reasons for judgment and orders and exhibits to Justice Health within 7 days;

The Court directs that a copy of the Victim Impact Statements be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) within 7 days.

**********

Decision last updated: 10 November 2023

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Clarke [2023] NSWSC 1360
Hearing dates:	17 October 2023
Date of orders:	17 October 2023
Decision date:	10 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Rothman J
Decision:	(1) In relation to each of the two counts, a special verdict is entered, pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), namely that the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible; (2) Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Paul Clarke 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 2020 (NSW), Paul Clarke is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal; (4) The Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days; (5) The Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days; (6) The Registrar provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of these orders and the reasons for judgment when they are available and the exhibits within 7 days; (7) The Registrar notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the reasons for judgment and orders and exhibits to Justice Health within 7 days; (8) The Court directs that a copy of the Victim Impact Statements be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) within 7 days.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Murder – defence of mental health – fit to be tried – special verdict – acts constituting offence proved but accused not criminally responsible – orders made under s 31 and s 34 of Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – person fit to be tried – agreement between Crown and legally-represented accused – facts proved but accused not criminally responsible for conduct
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30N(4) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 31, 33, 34
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Paul Clarke (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: L Shaw (Crown) M Avenell SC (Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Matouk Joyner Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2021/312360; 2021/337248