R v Dalla-Betta - [2024] NSWSC 819

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dalla-Betta [2024] NSWSC 819
Hearing dates: 3 July 2024
Date of orders: 3 July 2024
Decision date: 03 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
The Court makes the following orders:
(1) A special verdict be 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) That pursuant to s 33 and s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Antonio Dalla-Betta 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) That the Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days.
(4) That the Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days.
(5) That the Registrar provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of the judgment, orders and exhibits within 7 days.
(6) That the Registrar notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the judgment, orders and exhibits to Justice Health within 7 days.
(7) The Court is to provide a copy of the victim impact statements of Ms Rebecca Dyke and Ms Shannyn Martinez, to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) within 7 days.

Catchwords:
CRIME – charge of murder – defence of mental health impairment – judge alone trial – parties agree defence of mental health impairment established – evidence by forensic psychiatrists – s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – special verdict – orders under s 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – consequential orders – victims impact statement

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
R v Jawid [2022] NSWSC 788
R v Sands [2021] NSWSC 1325
R v Siemek(No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Antonio Dalla-Betta (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
G. Steedman (Crown)
G. Hoare (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hammond Nguyen Turnbull (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00170928

JUDGMENT

By an indictment of 22 November 2023, Antonio Dalla-Betta (“the accused”), was charged with the offence of murder of Cheryl Ann Johnson (“the deceased”). He was committed for trial on 19 October 2023.
On 9 February 2024, the accused was arraigned before Wilson J and entered a plea of not guilty to murder on mental illness grounds. A trial date of 1 July 2024 was set down. There was agreement…

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 Dalla-Betta

Details

AGLC: R v Dalla-Betta [2024] NSWSC 819
Case: [2024] NSWSC 819
Decision Date: 03 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dalla-Betta involved a defendant charged with murder. The trial was conducted before a judge alone, and the defence was that the defendant had a mental health impairment. Both parties agreed that the defence of mental health impairment was established, and the matter proceeded to a special verdict under section 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The court had to determine whether the defendant had committed the act constituting the offence due to a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment. The legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 31, 33, and 34 of the Act, which address the criteria for determining if the accused's mental state negates criminal responsibility.

The court examined the evidence provided by the forensic psychiatrists and applied the statutory criteria. It found that the defendant did not have the requisite criminal responsibility for the offence due to a mental health impairment. The court considered the psychiatric evidence, the statutory provisions, and the principles of criminal law relevant to mental health impairments. The court concluded that the defendant's mental health impairment negated the necessary intent to commit murder. Consequently, the court delivered a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental health impairment under section 31 of the Act. The court then proceeded to make orders under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which involved placing conditions on the defendant's release and requiring ongoing treatment and supervision.

The final orders included a requirement for the defendant to undergo treatment and supervision in the community, subject to specified conditions. The court also directed that a victims impact statement be prepared and submitted to the court. These orders were made to ensure the safety of the community and to provide appropriate care and treatment for the defendant. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the psychiatric evidence, the statutory framework, and the principles of criminal law concerning mental health impairments. The court's ruling reflected a careful consideration of the defendant's mental state and its impact on criminal responsibility.

Orders