R v Crabbe - [2018] SASC 118

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CRABBE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SASC 118
Reasons for the Orders of The Honourable Justice Bampton
28 August 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
The defendant was charged with the murder of his mother - he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence - investigation into the defendant's mental competence dealt with by way of a Judge sitting alone - Court determined to proceed first with the question of the defendant's mental competence to commit the offence in accordance with s 269FA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ("the CLCA") - Court accepted psychiatric evidence - finding recorded that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) - finding recorded that the objective elements of the offence of murder established beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 269FB(2) - defendant found not guilty of the offence of murder pursuant to s 269FB(3) and declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA - supervision order made and limiting term of life fixed pursuant to s 269O(2) - order made committing the defendant to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b).
HELD:
1. Finding recorded pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder.
2. Finding recorded pursuant to s 269FB(2) that the objective elements of the offence established beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Pursuant to s 269FB(3), defendant found not guilty of the offence of murder and declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA.
4. The defendant is committed to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b) of the CLCA.
5. Limiting term of life fixed pursuant to s 269O(2) of the CLCA.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, s 269, referred to.

R v CRABBE
[2018] SASC 118
Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone

BAMPTON J: Leonard John Crabbe is charged with the murder of his mother, Lorraine Constance Hollis, on 30 March 2016 (“the offence”). Mr Crabbe has pleaded not guilty, raising the defence of mental incompetence.
Mr Crabbe is presumed to be mentally competent to commit an offence unless he is found, on investigation under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“the Act”), to have been mentally incompetent to commit the offence with which he is charged.
Mr Crabbe has elected to have an investigation under Part 8A dealt with by Judge sitting alone pursuant to s 269B(1) of the Act.
Mental competence
Pursuant to s 269E(2), I have determined to proceed first with the trial of Mr Crabbe’s mental competence to commit the offence.
Mr Crabbe has the onus of displacing the presumption of mental competence pursuant to s 269D of the Act.
The reports of the forensic psychiatrists, Dr Furst, dated 3 October 2017, and Dr Haeney, 24 April 2018, and the supplementary report of Dr Haeney, dated 2 August 2018, have been provided to the Court. The opinions of the forensic psychiatrists establish on the balance of probabilities that Mr Crabbe was mentally incompetent, as defined under s 269C of the Act, to commit the offence.
Mr Crabbe has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He also has an antisocial personality and a long history of substance abuse and addiction. Analysis of a blood sample collected from Mr Crabbe at 1.40 am on 31 March 2016 showed the presence of methamphetamine at a concentration of 0.044 mg/L. Amphetamine was also detected. The pharmacologist, Professor Jason White, states in his declaration dated 9 July 2018 that the amphetamine detected was likely to have been a metabolite of methamphetamine used by Mr Crabbe. Professor White considers the estimated concentration of methamphetamine in Mr Crabbe’s blood at the time of the alleged conduct was not high and the effects produced by the concentration are unlikely to have produced significant effects in a person like Mr Crabbe, who had considerable experience of use of the drug.
Dr Furst and Dr Haeney agree with Professor White’s assessment that the duration of psychosis experienced by Mr Crabbe following the alleged conduct was beyond the usual threshold for a diagnosis of drug induced psychosis, confirming their view that Mr Crabbe’s conduct was primarily driven by his schizophrenic illness and was not solely or predominantly attributed to methamphetamine use.
Dr Furst states in his report that, in his opinion, at the time Mr Crabbe stabbed his mother, he was suffering from schizophrenia and his presentation was not caused by intoxication with amphetamines or methamphetamine. Dr Furst believes that, as a result of Mr Crabbe’s schizophrenia, Mr Crabbe developed a bizarre and persecutory delusion that his mother was a witch and that, if he allowed her to walk in a circle around him, she would kill him. He also heard auditory hallucinations telling him to transform, reinforcing that his mother was going to kill him, leading up to him taking up a knife and stabbing her. Therefore, as a result of the delusions and hallucinations arising from his schizophrenia, Dr Furst considers that Mr Crabbe has an impairment defence as he was unable to reason about the wrongfulness of his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure, killing his mother in a stabbing frenzy.
Dr Haeney considers that Mr Crabbe was suffering with schizophrenia at the time he stabbed his mother. Dr Haeney states that Mr Crabbe was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure regarding the wrongfulness of his conduct, labouring under the belief that his mother was a witch and trying to kill him.
Both Dr Furst and Dr Haeney are of the opinion, pursuant to s 269C(b), that Mr Crabbe, at the time of the alleged conduct, did not know that his conduct was wrong. That is, he could not reason about whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
The prosecution does not object to the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Haeney being admitted into evidence pursuant to s 269FA(1)(b) of the Act. Having regard to those opinions, and noting that the prosecution and defence agree, pursuant to s 269FA(5)(a), I dispense with the investigation into Mr Crabbe’s mental competence to commit the alleged offence.
Pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) of the Act, I record a finding that Mr Crabbe was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder.
Objective elements
Having made the finding that Mr Crabbe was mentally incompetent to commit the offence, I must enquire into whether the objective elements of the offence have been established pursuant to s 269FB of the Act.
The prosecution has provided a list of the declarations filed and relied on in this matter. Mr Crabbe admits the facts deposed to in the declarations relied on. Mr Crabbe concedes that the evidence contained in the declarations establishes beyond reasonable doubt the objective elements of the offence. Having considered that evidence, I note that Lorraine Hollis died as a result of the combined effects of stab wounds to her neck, chest and abdomen. Those stab wounds were inflicted by Mr Crabbe. Accordingly, I record a finding pursuant to s 269FB(2) of the Act that the objective elements of the offence are established beyond reasonable doubt.
Not guilty finding and declaration
Having found the objective elements established, pursuant to s 269FB(3) of the Act, I find Mr Crabbe not guilty and declare him liable to supervision under Division 4, Subdivision 2 of the Act.
Having found Mr Crabbe liable to supervision, I make a supervision order committing him to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b) of the Act.
Pursuant to s 269O(2) of the Act, I fix a limiting term of life (being the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed if Mr Crabbe had been convicted of the offence of murder).
Upon making the supervision order, the Minister for Mental Health must provide the Court with a report from a psychiatrist regarding Mr Crabbe’s diagnosis, prognosis, and suggested treatment plan, pursuant to s 269Q of the Act. I also order a report pursuant to s 269T of the Act.
The prosecution will provide reports pursuant to s 269R of the Act.