Legal Research
Cases
R v Khatib

R v Khatib

Case [2019] NSWSC 1734 4 December 2019

Mental Health Defence

Psychiatric Evidence

Mentally Ill at Time of Offence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Khatib [2019] NSWSC 1734
Hearing dates: 4 December 2019
Date of orders: 04 December 2019
Decision date: 04 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
I make the following orders:

(1) I find Siham Khatib not guilty of the murder of Noura Khatib on the grounds of mental illness.

(2) Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I order that the accused 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 Attorney General, the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these orders as soon as practicable.
(4) The Registrar is to provide the Tribunal with a copy of my reasons and of the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Adams.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – mental health defence – psychiatric evidence – accused suffered defect of reasoning – accused unable to reason wrongfulness – accused mentally ill at time of offence – special verdict of not guilty – order pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Act (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 174 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
Mizzi v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 659; [1960] HCA 77
R v Gourlay [2015] NSWSC 67
R v Lopez [2014] NSWSC 287
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Minnani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Opie [2014] NSWSC 814
R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068
R v Pratt [2009] NSWSC 1108
R v Rodriguez [2010] NSWSC 198
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; 86 CLR 358
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Siham Khatib (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Herps (Crown)
T D Anderson, with C V Newman (Accused)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/27323

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 12 July 2019, Siham Khatib (“the accused”) was arraigned on the count that she, on 25 January 2018, in South Granville in the State of New South Wales, did murder Noura Khatib (“the deceased”).
Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. Pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the trial proceeded by way of a Judge alone trial. The obligations upon a judge sitting alone are specified in s 133 of that Act.

ISSUE AT TRIAL

It was common ground that between 6.10am and 6.18am on 25 January 2018, the deceased aged 63 years of age was stabbed five times,…

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 Khatib

Details

AGLC: R v Khatib [2019] NSWSC 1734
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1734
Decision Date: 04 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent was charged with causing the death of a pedestrian while driving. The respondent, who suffered from schizophrenia, claimed that at the time of the incident, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was required to determine whether the respondent was fit to plead and whether he was mentally ill at the time of the offence. The court heard psychiatric evidence from experts who diagnosed the respondent with schizophrenia and concluded that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions due to his mental illness. The court was required to consider whether the respondent's mental illness was a disease of the mind and whether it affected his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The court held that the respondent suffered from a defect of reasoning and was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions due to his mental illness. The court found that the respondent was not fit to plead and entered a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court made an order under section 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, which required the respondent to be detained in a psychiatric facility for treatment. The court held that the respondent's mental illness was a disease of the mind and that it affected his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The court found that the respondent's schizophrenia was a significant factor in his inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, and that he was not fit to plead. The court ordered that the respondent be detained in a psychiatric facility for treatment.

Orders