R v Kerollos - [2021] NSWSC 259

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kerollos [2021] NSWSC 259
Hearing dates: 23-26 February 2021
Decision date: 25 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
Verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. Accused directed to be detained.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – defence of mental illness – stabbing by accused of his wife – history of mental illness – delusional beliefs that she had been unfaithful and promiscuous

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 38(1)

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490, [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
The King v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mourad Kerollos (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
C Davenport SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SAS Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/156203
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The accused, Mourad Kerollos, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of his wife, Gihan Kerollos. It is not in dispute that on the evening of 18 May 2019, outside the Prince of Wales Hospital at Randwick, he stabbed her a number of times in and around the neck and the upper chest, severing her carotid artery and jugular vein and causing her death. There is, in any event, abundant evidence establishing that fact beyond reasonable doubt. The only issue in the case is whether the accused has available to him the defence of mental illness.
On that issue I received reports and oral evidence from two respected forensic psychiatrists, to which I shall turn later. The other evidence in the case, relating to the background and circumstances of the tragic incident, is summarised in a comprehensive statement of agreed facts.

Background

The accused and the deceased were of Egyptian origin but they married after they migrated to this country. At the time of the death of the deceased they had been married for 24 years. They had three sons, now adults. At the time of the killing the family had been living for some years in a home at Panania.
The accused and the deceased were adherents of the Coptic Christian faith. He was employed as a security officer at Auburn Hospital, and she as an administrator at Prince of Wales Hospital.
In the period of about two years prior to the killing their marriage declined. This is the subject of a deal of evidence summarised in the statement of agreed facts, based on statements of their sons, clergy at their church, and friends and colleagues of the deceased. The effect of this material can be summarised relatively briefly.
In the last two years of the relationship the accused and the deceased started sleeping in separate bedrooms. They argued a lot, but it seems that the accused never hurt her or threatened to do so. In 2016 to 2017 he had had an…

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 Kerollos

Details

AGLC: R v Kerollos [2021] NSWSC 259
Case: [2021] NSWSC 259
Decision Date: 25 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kerollos involved a man who was accused of stabbing his wife to death. The accused had a history of mental illness and believed that his wife was unfaithful and promiscuous. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the accused could be held responsible for his actions under criminal law, given his mental state at the time of the offence.

The court needed to determine if the accused's mental illness was such that it negated his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder. This involved examining the nature and extent of his delusional beliefs, and whether these beliefs were so severe that they impaired his ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions or to control his behaviour. The court had to balance the principles of criminal responsibility with the need to protect society from dangerous individuals.

The court found that the accused's delusional beliefs were indeed severe enough to significantly impair his ability to form the necessary intent to commit murder. It concluded that at the time of the offence, the accused was not capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act or of understanding that it was wrong. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused was not criminally responsible for the murder of his wife due to his mental illness. The court ordered that he be detained in a secure mental health facility.

Orders