R v Drummond-Murray - [2018] NSWSC 1870

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Drummond-Murray [2018] NSWSC 1870
Hearing dates: 05 December 2018
Decision date: 06 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) I find the accused, Mr Matthew Drummond-Murray, unfit to be tried for the offences on the indictment with which he is charged.
(2) Pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), I refer Mr Drummond-Murray to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
(3) I adjourn the proceedings before this Court and remand Mr Drummond-Murray in custody until the determination of the Tribunal has been given effect.
(4) The matter is listed for mention only in the next arraignments list of this Court at 10 am on 8 February 2019.
(5) I direct the Registrar of the Court to forward to the Registrar of the Mental Health Review Tribunal:
(a) The exhibits tendered before me;
(b) A transcript of the hearing of 5 December 2018; and
(c) A copy of this judgment.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – count of murder – issue of fitness of accused to be tried – inquiry held – diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia and substance use disorder – resistant to medication over several years – unanimous evidence of psychiatrists – evidence from two defence solicitors – discussion of aspects of question of fitness – finding of unfitness
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew Drummond-Murray (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Robertson (Crown)
L Brasch (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/166144
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

On 5 December 2018, an indictment was filed in this Court before me by the Crown against Mr Matthew Drummond-Murray (the accused). For reasons that will become apparent below, he was not asked to enter a plea to any count on the indictment.
In short form, the first count alleged that, on 16 August 2017 at Surry Hills, he murdered Mr Stephen Mottram (the deceased). The second count, which was in the alternative to the first, alleged that on 6 November 2015 at Surry Hills, the accused caused grievous bodily harm to the deceased, with intent to murder him. The third count alleged that, on 7 November 2015, he assaulted a police officer acting in the execution of her duty. The fourth and final count alleged that, on 6 November 2015, the accused stole a knife.
As I shall explain in more detail below, the question of the fitness of the accused to stand trial on an indictment had been raised before that time; indeed, it had previously been determined more than a year previously by Judge Frearson SC in the District Court.
I had no doubt that, as at 5 December 2018, there continued to be a bona fide question about the fitness of the accused, in accordance with s 5 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)…

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 Drummond-Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Drummond-Murray [2018] NSWSC 1870
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1870
Decision Date: 06 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Drummond-Murray, the respondent stood accused of the murder of an individual in Victoria. The case involved a complex inquiry into the fitness of the accused to be tried for the offence. The primary issue before the court was to determine whether the respondent was fit to stand trial given the evidence of chronic schizophrenia and substance use disorder, as well as his resistance to medication over several years. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Harper.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the definition and application of the fitness to be tried standard under the relevant criminal law. This involved assessing the respondent's mental state and the impact of his conditions on his ability to understand the proceedings, instruct counsel, and participate in his defence. The court was tasked with weighing the evidence from multiple psychiatrists and defence solicitors to determine if the respondent met the criteria for being unfit to stand trial.

The court undertook a thorough analysis of the evidence provided. The unanimous opinion of the psychiatrists who examined the respondent was that he was unfit to be tried due to his chronic schizophrenia and substance use disorder, which rendered him resistant to medication and unable to participate meaningfully in the trial process. The two defence solicitors also provided evidence supporting the view that the respondent's mental state was severely impaired. The court concluded that the evidence supported a finding of unfitness to stand trial. Therefore, the court ordered that the respondent be detained in a mental health facility under the Mental Health Act.

No further orders were made regarding the substantive charge of murder, as the court found that the respondent was unfit to be tried for the offence. The case highlights the importance of the rigorous assessment of fitness to stand trial in criminal cases involving severe mental illness.

Orders