Legal Research
Cases
R v Jackson

R v Jackson

Case [2021] NSWSC 1404 1 November 2021

Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Special Verdict

Mental Health Impairment

Schizoaffective Disorder

Not Criminally Responsible

Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type

Mental State at Time of Offence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
Hearing dates: 1 November 2021
Date of orders: 1 November 2021
Decision date: 01 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1. On the charge that the Accused, on 21 March 2020 at Croydon in the State of New South Wales, did murder Paul Robert Hughes, the Court returns a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.
2. Pursuant to s.33(1)(b) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, the Court orders that Terrance Edward Jackson be detained in 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.
3. Pursuant to s.34 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, the Court refers Terrance Edward Jackson to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
The Court further orders:
4. The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal, as soon as practicable, of the making of these orders and is to provide to that Tribunal the following documentation:
1. a copy of the Court's reasons for verdict and for making these orders;
2. a copy of the tender bundle (Exhibit A), which includes the reports of Ms Lucas, Dr Dayalan and Dr Eagle.
5. The Registrar is to notify Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network ("Justice Health") as soon as practicable, of the verdict and orders in this matter and is to provide to Justice Health copies of the following documents:
1. copy of the reasons of the Court for verdict and making these orders;
2. copies of the reports of Ms Lucas, Dr Dayalan and Dr Eagle.

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – defence of mental health impairment – special verdict where prosecutor and defence agree that defence available – consideration of ss.4, 28 and 31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 – accused drove motor vehicle over deceased causing death – unanimous medical evidence that accused subject to mental health impairment at time of act causing death – schizoaffective disorder – schizophrenia, paranoid type – special verdict entered under ss.30 and 31 of Act of “act proven but not criminally responsible” – orders made under ss.33 and 34 of Act

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Cases Cited:
R v Gough [2021] NSWDC 180
R v Sands [2021] NSWSC 1325
R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064
Robinson v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 88; [2006] NSWCCA 192

Texts Cited:
---

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Terrance Edward Jackson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr MC Hay (Crown)
Mr AM Webb (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/89914
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The Accused, Terrance Edward Jackson, is charged by indictment that, on 21 March 2020…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1404
Decision Date: 01 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jackson was heard in a relevant Australian court where the central issue was whether the accused, who had driven a motor vehicle over a deceased person, was criminally responsible for the act due to a mental health impairment at the time of the incident. The accused was charged with murder but the prosecution and defence agreed that the defence of mental health impairment was available and that there was sufficient evidence to establish the elements of murder. The court was required to consider the provisions of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, specifically sections 4, 28, and 31, to determine the accused’s criminal responsibility. The court needed to assess whether the accused's mental health impairment was severe enough to absolve them of criminal responsibility, considering unanimous medical evidence that the accused suffered from a schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia of the paranoid type, at the time of the offence.

The court's analysis involved a detailed examination of the accused’s mental state at the time of the incident, guided by medical evidence and statutory provisions. The unanimous medical evidence indicated that the accused was suffering from a significant mental health impairment, which affected their ability to understand the nature and quality of the act or to know that it was wrong. The court found that the accused's mental health condition met the threshold for a special verdict under sections 30 and 31 of the Act, concluding that the act was proven but the accused was not criminally responsible. This conclusion was based on the clear evidence that the accused's mental health impairment precluded them from having the requisite criminal intent or understanding.

Following the special verdict, the court proceeded to make orders under sections 33 and 34 of the Act. These orders were designed to ensure that the accused would receive appropriate treatment and care for their mental health condition. The orders included provisions for the accused's detention and treatment in a secure mental health facility, subject to periodic reviews to assess their ongoing mental health status and the appropriateness of continued detention. The court’s orders reflected a balanced approach, prioritising the accused’s treatment needs while also considering public safety.

Orders