R v Lambros - [2023] NSWSC 462

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lambros [2023] NSWSC 462
Hearing dates: 01 May 2023
Date of orders: 01 May 2023
Decision date: 01 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) A special verdict be entered, pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), namely the act is proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible due to mental impairment.
(2) Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), the defendant is to be detained in a correctional facility or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until he is released by due process of law.
(3) That the Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days.
(4) That the Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days.
(5) That the Registrar provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of this judgment, orders and exhibits tendered within 7 days.
(6) That the Registrar notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the judgment, orders and exhibits to Justice Health within 7 days.
(7) There is to be no publication of the victim impact statement (Exhibit B). It will be put in an envelope and marked not to be opened except by order of a judge of this Court. If there is any application for access to the court file, that document is not to be released until the parties have had an opportunity to be heard. An exception to the non-publication order is that Exhibit B will go with the other exhibits to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. It will not be sent to Justice Health. The Registrar to be notified accordingly.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – stabbing – special verdict – mental health impairment – where victim and accused took drugs together – where accused formed delusional belief that victim poisoned him – where parties agree that defence of mental impairment is established – evidentiary hearing – hearing conducted before trial commenced – procedural provisions – where accused made repeated complaints of physical symptoms and belief that victim tried to kill him – opinions expressed by psychiatrists retained by both parties – joint opinion that accused suffered mental impairment and did not know his actions were wrong – special verdict entered – consequential orders – receipt of victim impact statement – privacy and non-publication order

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30L(1), 30L(2), 30N, 30N(4)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132(2), 141, 143
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 31, 33, 33(1), 33(1)(b), 33(2), 34, 78(c), Pt 5

Cases Cited:
R v Gough [2021] NSWDC 180
R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
R v Lailna [2023] NSWSC 48
R v Siemek (No…

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 Lambros

Details

AGLC: R v Lambros [2023] NSWSC 462
Case: [2023] NSWSC 462
Decision Date: 01 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lambros involved a tragic incident where the accused, Lambros, fatally stabbed the victim after consuming drugs with him. The case came before the court on a special verdict, where the parties agreed that the accused suffered from a mental impairment at the time of the offence. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal outcome in light of the special verdict and the agreed mental impairment. The central issue for the court was to decide whether the accused's mental impairment negated his criminal responsibility for the stabbing. Given the special verdict and the joint psychiatric opinion, the court found that Lambros did not know the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong.

The court examined the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the evidentiary hearing held prior to the trial. Lambros had repeatedly complained of physical symptoms and delusional beliefs that the victim had tried to poison him, which were consistent with the agreed mental impairment. The psychiatrists retained by both parties concurred that Lambros suffered from a mental disorder that impaired his ability to understand his actions or their wrongfulness. The court accepted this joint opinion and proceeded to enter a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The court then considered the consequential orders, including the receipt of a victim impact statement and the imposition of a privacy and non-publication order to protect the identity of the victim and their family.

Orders