R v Hadler (No 2) - [2018] NSWSC 1804

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hadler (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1804
Hearing dates: 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 November 2018
Date of orders: 23 November 2018
Decision date: 23 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is returned with respect to the charge of murder.
(2) Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), Michael Hadler 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) I direct that the Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders.
(4) I direct that the Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of my verdict and of these orders. I also direct that the Registrar provide the Tribunal with a copy of these reasons and orders, and a copy of trial exhibits F, G, N1, N2, 2, 11 and 13.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness – schizophrenia - relevance of consumption of illicit drugs to psychosis – relevance of forensic awareness by the accused to knowledge of wrongfulness – “cover-up” of crime scene - unanimous agreement of experts as to availability of defence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500
McNaghten’s Case (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49
R v Hadler [2018] NSWSC 1151
R v Jenkins [1964] NSWR 721; (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20; 81 WN (Pt 2) (NSW) 44
R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157
R v Michaux [1984] 2 Qd R 159; 13 A Crim R 173
Radford v R (1985) 42 SASR 266
Steer v R (2008) 191 A Crim R 435
Taylor v R (1978) 45 FLR 343; 22 ALR 599
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Michael Hadler
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Hughes (Crown Prosecutor)
Ms S Beckett (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2016/00286148
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: In the early hours of the morning of 23 September 2016 Brian Hamilton was killed by the infliction upon him of multiple stab wounds. Later that same day the accused, Michael Hadler, walked into Bankstown Police Station and confessed to having wielded the knife. He was charged with Mr Hamilton’s murder.
Later, when arraigned on 4 May 2018, before Johnson J, the accused entered a plea of not guilty on the…

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 Hadler (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Hadler (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1804
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1804
Decision Date: 23 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Hadler (No 2) arose before the High Court of Australia, with the central issue being the defendant's plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness, specifically schizophrenia, at the time of committing murder. The case required the court to determine the impact of the defendant's consumption of illicit drugs on his psychosis and whether his forensic awareness indicated knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's actions in covering up the crime scene and the unanimous agreement of expert witnesses on the availability of the defence of mental illness.

The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the criteria for establishing a defence of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court needed to assess the interplay between the defendant's schizophrenia, his drug use, and his awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions. The consumption of illicit drugs was a significant factor, as it was argued that these substances exacerbated the defendant's psychosis. The court also had to evaluate the relevance of the defendant's actions to conceal the crime scene and the importance of expert consensus in determining the availability of the defence.

The court held that the defendant's schizophrenia was a significant factor in his mental state at the time of the crime. While the consumption of illicit drugs contributed to his psychosis, it did not preclude the availability of the defence. The court found that the defendant's forensic awareness, demonstrated by his actions to cover up the crime, did not necessarily negate the defence of mental illness. The unanimous agreement of the expert witnesses on the availability of the defence was a critical factor in the court's decision. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant's mental illness was a substantial mitigating factor, and the defence of not guilty by reason of mental illness was available.

The court ordered that the defendant be found not guilty by reason of mental illness and remanded him to a secure mental health facility for treatment and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of expert evidence and the need for a comprehensive understanding of the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime in determining the availability of the defence.

Orders