R v Degei - [2021] NSWSC 45

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Degei [2021] NSWSC 45
Hearing dates: 3 February 2021
Date of orders: 05 February 2021
Decision date: 05 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
(1)   As to the offence of murder charged in the indictment, the accused is found not guilty by reason of mental illness.
(2) As to each of the charges, sequences 2 to 5 in the s 166 certificate, the accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness.
(3) Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the accused is to be detained at a correctional facility or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
(4)   The Registrar is to notify the Minister for Health, as soon as practicable, of the making of these orders.
(5)   The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network of these orders, and to provide to the Tribunal the following documentation:
(a)   a copy of this judgment and the orders;
(b)   the transcript of the trial; and
(c)   the medical reports of Dr Furst dated 4 February 2019, and Professor Greenberg dated 23 February 2020 and 27 January 2021.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – related offences on s 166 certificate – defence of mental illness – found not guilty of all offences by reason of mental illness

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 16, 19, 22(1)(b), 38, 39

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Degei [2020] NSWSC 1267
R v Deakin [2021] NSWSC 20
Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Imaueli Jone Degei (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Isaacs (Crown)
P David (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aquila Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/261828
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The accused, Imaueli Jone Degei, is charged with the murder of Kristina Kalnic at Carramar on 25 August 2018.
Because of mental illness he is unfit to stand trial. Following the appropriate procedures under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), he is before me, sitting without a jury, in a special hearing under s 19 of that Act. As will be seen, the only issue is whether he should be found not guilty by reason of mental illness, a verdict available at a special hearing by s 22(1)(b) of the Act.
The evidence is before me in documentary form in a Crown court book. Included in that book are the statements of a number of witnesses and reports by two respected forensic psychiatrists. The evidence relating to the fatal incident is succinctly, but adequately, summarised in a Crown case statement. The accused is also charged with some lesser offences…

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 Degei

Details

AGLC: R v Degei [2021] NSWSC 45
Case: [2021] NSWSC 45
Decision Date: 05 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Degei, the accused, Degei, was on trial for a series of violent offences, including murder, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on Degei's criminal responsibility for the offences and whether he could be held accountable given his mental health status at the time of the crimes. The court was required to determine whether Degei was not criminally responsible for the offences due to a mental disorder, pursuant to section 286ZE of the Criminal Code.

The primary legal issue was whether Degei was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offences, and if so, whether this illness absolved him of criminal responsibility. The court needed to consider the evidence provided by medical experts, the submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, and the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to ascertain whether Degei's mental illness was such that it rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or that it rendered the act wrong.

The court found that Degei was suffering from a mental illness that affected his ability to understand the nature and quality of the act or that it rendered the act wrong. The medical evidence provided indicated that Degei was experiencing a severe mental disorder that impaired his capacity to form the requisite criminal intent. The court accepted that Degei's mental illness was a significant mitigating factor and found him not guilty of all offences by reason of mental illness. The court ordered that Degei be detained in a mental health facility for treatment and care.

Orders