R v Matthew Whitton - [2022] NSWDC 274

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Matthew Whitton [2022] NSWDC 274
Hearing dates: 18 July 2022
Decision date: 19 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Coleman SC DCJ
Decision:
On the charge that the Accused, on 1 December 2020, at Moorebank, NSW, did wound Roy Whitton with intent to murder him, the Court returns a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Catchwords:
CRIME – wound with intent to murder – defence of mental health impairment – special verdict where prosecutor and defence agree that defence is available – consideration of ss 4, 28 and 31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 – schizophrenia and chronic psychotic condition – special verdict entered under ss 30 and 31 of the MHCIFP Act of “act proven but not criminally responsible” – orders made under ss 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 27, 33(1)(a)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 NSW s 166
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 NSW ss 4, 28, 31, 33, 34

Cases Cited:
R v Brian Lee (No.2) [2019] NSWSC 586
R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
R v Osmond [2019] NSWSC 326
R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew Whitton (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Allison (Crown)
Ms F Jowett (Accused)
Solicitors:
Ms C Vye (Crown)
Mr P Morris (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/378132; 2019/378069

Judgment

The Offences/Background

The Accused, Matthew Whitton, is charged with an offence that on 1 December 2020, at Moorebank, NSW, he did wound Roy Whitton with intent to murder him, being an offence pursuant to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 1).
In the alternative, the Accused is charged with an offence that he did wound Roy Whitton with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm being an offence pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2).
There was also a related charge of contravene the terms of an apprehended domestic violence order.
On 18 December 2020, the Accused was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty to Count 1 and the alternative Count 2.
The Crown and Counsel for the Accused have agreed that the proposed evidence in the proceedings establishes a defence of mental health impairment. The question for the Court is whether, after considering that evidence, it is satisfied that the defence of mental health impairment is established for the purposes of s.31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (“the Act”).

Relevant Statutory Provisions & Principles

Section 31 of the Act provides as follows:

“31 Special verdict where defendant and prosecutor agree on impairment
The court may enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible at any time in the proceedings (including before the jury is empanelled) if—
(a) the defendant and the prosecutor agree that the proposed evidence in the proceedings establishes a defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, and

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 Matthew Whitton

Details

AGLC: R v Matthew Whitton [2022] NSWDC 274
Case: [2022] NSWDC 274
Decision Date: 19 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matthew Whitton involved a dispute regarding an incident where the accused, Matthew Whitton, allegedly wounded Roy Whitton with intent to murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case centred on the accused's mental health and whether it impaired his ability to form the requisite intent to be held criminally responsible for the offence.

The court was tasked with determining if the accused had a mental health impairment that affected his capacity to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong at the time of the offence. This involved an analysis of sections 4, 28, and 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020. The prosecution and defence both agreed that a defence of mental health impairment was available to the accused, which led to the court considering a special verdict under sections 30 and 31 of the MHCIFP Act. The court needed to assess whether the accused was proven to have committed the act but was not criminally responsible due to his mental condition.

The court found that the accused suffered from schizophrenia and a chronic psychotic condition, which impaired his ability to form the intent to murder. As a result, the court returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible. Under sections 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act, the court ordered that the accused be subject to a treatment order, with conditions that he reside in a specified hospital and comply with prescribed treatment. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the accused's mental health and the need for public protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

On the charge that the Accused, on 1 December 2020, at Moorebank, NSW, did wound Roy Whitton with intent to murder him, the Court returns a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Matthew Whitton [2022] NSWDC 274
Hearing dates:	18 July 2022
Decision date:	19 July 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Coleman SC DCJ
Decision:	On the charge that the Accused, on 1 December 2020, at Moorebank, NSW, did wound Roy Whitton with intent to murder him, the Court returns a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.
Catchwords:	CRIME – wound with intent to murder – defence of mental health impairment – special verdict where prosecutor and defence agree that defence is available – consideration of ss 4, 28 and 31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 – schizophrenia and chronic psychotic condition – special verdict entered under ss 30 and 31 of the MHCIFP Act of “act proven but not criminally responsible” – orders made under ss 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 27, 33(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 NSW s 166 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 NSW ss 4, 28, 31, 33, 34
Cases Cited:	R v Brian Lee (No.2) [2019] NSWSC 586 R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404 R v Osmond [2019] NSWSC 326 R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew Whitton (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr B Allison (Crown) Ms F Jowett (Accused) Solicitors: Ms C Vye (Crown) Mr P Morris (Accused)
File Number(s):	2019/378132; 2019/378069