R v Macguire - [2020] NSWSC 1768

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Macguire [2020] NSWSC 1768
Hearing dates: 7 December 2020
Date of orders: 8 December 2020
Decision date: 08 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Verdict: Not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
Matthew Terrence John Macguire is to be detained at the Forensic Hospital until released by due process of law.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – accused unfit to be tried – special hearing – judge alone – psychiatric diagnosis of treatment resistant schizophrenia – whether defence of mental illness established – M’Naghten rules – not guilty on the ground of mental illness

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

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 (1933) 55 CLR 182

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew Terrence Macguire (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
T Evers (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/110318
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

On 11 December 2019 Matthew Terrence John Macguire was committed from Burwood Local Court to this Court for trial on a charge that on 8 April 2019 at Silverwater he did murder Ryan Fennell. The particulars of the charge are that whilst the accused and the deceased were sharing a cell in the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (“MRRC”) at Silverwater prison, the accused carried out a sustained attack on Mr Fennell, inflicting severe head injuries that resulted in his death. On 7 December 2020 I conducted a special hearing of the charge pursuant to s 19(2) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Forensic Provisions Act”). These are the Court’s reasons for the verdict and orders that will be entered pursuant to my determination under that section.
On 20 April 2020 Hidden AJ found the accused unfit to be tried and referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal as required by the Forensic Provisions Act. His Honour remanded the accused in custody at the Forensic Hospital, subject to any order of the Tribunal. The Forensic Hospital, located at Long Bay, is referred to by various names throughout the medical records and reports in the case. In these reasons I will convert all such references to “the Forensic Hospital”. On 20 July 2020 the Tribunal determined that the accused was “presently unfit and will not become fit to be tried for the [offence] with which he has been charged within 12 months of the Court’s finding of unfitness”. The Tribunal determined that he should be detained at the Forensic Hospital for care and treatment.
The Tribunal’s determination was duly conveyed to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. On 11 August 2020 the Director informed the Court that he intended to proceed with the charge. Accordingly the…

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 Macguire

Details

AGLC: R v Macguire [2020] NSWSC 1768
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1768
Decision Date: 08 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Macguire involves a criminal trial where the accused was charged with murder. The dispute centred on the accused's fitness to be tried, which necessitated a special hearing before a judge alone. The accused claimed to be suffering from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, raising the defence of mental illness at the time of the alleged offence. The court had to determine whether the defence of mental illness had been established according to the M’Naghten rules.

The primary legal issue was whether the accused's mental state at the time of the offence met the criteria for a defence of mental illness under Australian law. This required the court to assess the accused's psychiatric condition, the nature of their illness, and whether it rendered them unable to understand the nature and quality of their act or to know that it was wrong. The court also had to consider whether the accused could be held criminally responsible despite their illness.

The court found that the accused suffered from a severe mental disorder that met the threshold for a defence of mental illness under the M’Naghten rules. The evidence presented by psychiatrists confirmed the diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and the accused's inability to comprehend the wrongfulness of their actions or to control their behaviour at the time of the offence. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused was not guilty of murder on the ground of mental illness. The court's decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the psychiatric evidence and a careful application of the legal principles governing mental illness as a defence.

Orders