R v Hindmarsh - [2016] NSWSC 94

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hindmarsh [2016] NSWSC 94
Hearing dates: 19 February 2016
Date of orders: 19 February 2016
Decision date: 19 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1)Under s 38 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), I return a special verdict of not guilty of the charge of murder by reason of mental illness;
(2)Under s 39 of the Act, Paul Hindmarsh 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 the Registrar to notify the Minister for Health of these orders;
(4)I direct the Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of my special verdict and of these orders. The Registrar is to provide the Tribunal with a copy of these reasons, my orders and the exhibits.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the person – murder – trial by judge alone – defence of mental illness – accused suffering from severe case of paranoid schizophrenia – accused did not understand wrongfulness of his act – finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW);
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 at 466;
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500;
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; 55 CLR 182;
R v Jenkins (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20;
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Plaintiff)
Paul Hindmarsh(Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: T Thorpe (Crown Prosecutor)
C Loukas SC (Accused)
Solicitors: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/225825

judgment

The accused, Paul Hindmarsh, was arraigned today. He has pleaded not guilty to the single count on the indictment that, on or about 31 July 2014 at Mt Warrigal in the State of NSW, he murdered the deceased, Mr Joseph Gumley. An election under s 132(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) was made by Mr Hindmarsh within the time permitted by law to be tried by a judge alone. This election was consented to by the Crown on 23rd November 2015. These circumstances require the Court to order that Mr Hindmarsh by tried by a Judge sitting without a jury and that order was made by Johnson J on 4th December 2015 under s 132(2). The real issue is whether the defence of mental illness is made out.

Summary of Crown case

The Crown case is that on 31 July 2014 at some time between 6:30 am and 7: 00 am, Mr Hindmarsh struck Mr Gumley a number of times about his head with an electric guitar belonging to Mr Gumley, also strangling him with the guitar’s electric lead causing fatal injuries. The Crown accepts that the whole of the evidence supports the return of the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.

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 Hindmarsh

Details

AGLC: R v Hindmarsh [2016] NSWSC 94
Case: [2016] NSWSC 94
Decision Date: 19 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hindmarsh, the defendant was charged with murder and his trial took place before a judge alone in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendant, who was suffering from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia, pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, asserting that he did not understand the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence due to his mental illness. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant could be found guilty of murder, or whether he should be acquitted on the grounds that he was not criminally responsible by reason of mental illness.

The court was required to determine the legal standards applicable to a defendant who claims to be not criminally responsible due to mental illness, and whether the evidence presented supported such a finding. This involved a detailed examination of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence, the nature and extent of his paranoid schizophrenia, and whether he was capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions. The court also had to consider whether the evidence of expert witnesses, who provided opinions on the defendant's mental health, was sufficient to establish the defence of mental illness.

After considering the evidence, the court found that the defendant was indeed suffering from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offence, and that this condition rendered him incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant was not criminally responsible for the offence of murder by reason of mental illness. The court acquitted the defendant, ruling that he was not guilty due to his mental illness. The court's decision was based on the expert evidence presented, which established that the defendant's mental condition precluded him from appreciating the nature and quality of his act or understanding that it was wrong.

The court's final order was that the defendant be acquitted of the charge of murder on the grounds that he was not criminally responsible due to mental illness. The court directed that the defendant be detained in a secure mental health facility, as he continued to pose a risk to himself and others due to his mental condition. The decision in this case underscores the importance of the defence of mental illness in criminal proceedings and the need for a thorough assessment of a defendant's mental state to determine their criminal responsibility.

Orders