R v Hotoran - [2023] NSWSC 1249

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hotoran [2023] NSWSC 1249
Hearing dates: 20 October 2023
Decision date: 20 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. Special verdict pursuant to s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) of act proven but accused not criminally responsible entered against counts 1-6 inclusive, of the indictment dated 13 June 2023.
CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS
2. Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Richard Hotoran 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 the orders that the Court has today made, within seven days.
4. I direct the Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdicts that the Court has returned today and of these orders, within seven days.
5. I direct the Registrar to provide to the Mental Health Review Tribunal a copy of the judgment of the Court of today, a copy of the orders made today, and a copy of Exhibits A, B and C, within seven days from today.
6. I direct the Registrar to notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders of the Court and to provide a copy of the judgment of the Court, the orders of the Court and Exhibits A, B, and C to Justice Health within seven days.
7. Pursuant to s 30N of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), the Registrar is directed to provide a copy of the family victim impact statements of Anuj Garg (next of kin of Pankaj Kumar), Michelle Vokal (next of kin of Alric Vokal) and Georgina Chapman (next of kin of Peter Greenwood) to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within seven days of this order.

Catchwords:
CRIME – accused indicted for multiple counts of murder – intentionally damage property by means of fire – defence under the Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 – special verdict where defendant and prosecutor agree on impairment – chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder – chronic psychotic illnesses – auditory hallucinations and serious mood disturbance – evidence of serious planning – no motive for the offending conduct – accused did not know his acts were wrong due to impairment – special verdict returned

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act1995 (NSW)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Richard Hotoran (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Hughes (Crown)
N Steel (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00075037
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: Richard Hotoran was arraigned before this Court on 7 July 2023 on an indictment which contained six offences charged against him. Those offences are that on 15 March 2022 at Newtown in…

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 Hotoran

Details

AGLC: R v Hotoran [2023] NSWSC 1249
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1249
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hotoran, the accused was indicted on multiple counts of murder and charges of intentionally damaging property by means of fire. The case was heard in a court of law where the accused's fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility were contested based on a defence under the Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020. The defendant and prosecutor agreed on the presence of a cognitive impairment, with evidence pointing towards chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, chronic psychotic illnesses, auditory hallucinations, and serious mood disturbance. The court had to determine whether the accused's impairment negated his criminal responsibility for the offences committed.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the accused's cognitive state at the time of the offences and determining if his impairment affected his understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions. The court had to consider whether the accused knew the nature and quality of his acts were wrong due to his impairment and whether he could comprehend the consequences of his actions. The evidence presented suggested that the accused had planned the offences meticulously, yet there was no clear motive for the conduct, raising questions about the impact of his mental state on his criminal responsibility.

The court, after considering the evidence and the special verdict agreed upon by both parties, concluded that the accused's chronic psychotic illnesses and cognitive impairment rendered him incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions. The court found that the accused did not know his acts were wrong due to his impairment. Consequently, the court returned a special verdict, recognising the accused's cognitive impairment and its effect on his criminal responsibility for the charges of murder and property damage by fire. The final orders of the court were to be determined based on this special verdict, ensuring that the accused's mental health needs were addressed appropriately.

Orders