R v MB

Case [2017] NSWSC 619 19 May 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MB [2017] NSWSC 619
Hearing dates: 28 April 2017
Date of orders: 19 May 2017
Decision date: 19 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
MB is convicted of the offence of manslaughter. Pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, an order made directing MB to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of four years. Pursuant to s 95 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the bond is subject to the following conditions:

(a)   that MB is to appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond; and

(b)   that MB is to be of good behaviour for the term of the bond; and

(c)   that within 14 days MB is to notify the Registrar of this Court of her residential address and, thereafter, within 14 days of her changing her residential address MB must notify the Registrar of the Court, and the Probation and Parole Service, of her new address; and

(d)   that by Friday 2 June 2017 MB report to an officer of the Probation and Parole Service at the nearest such service to her place of residence; and
(e)   that MB accept the supervision and directions of the officers of the Probation and Parole Service including all reasonable directions concerning attendance upon psychiatric specialists and mental health services and compliance with the directions and advice of those persons and bodies.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – manslaughter – offender drowned infant daughter in bath – offender entered plea of guilty to manslaughter – basis of plea was substantial impairment – Crimes Act, s 23A – offender suffering anxiety and symptoms of schizophrenia in period up to the drowning – offender acting under delusion that daughter had genetic abnormality – offender previously found unfit to be tried – later found fit – offender served previous period in custody – offender’s moral culpability reduced by reason of mental illness – offender unsuitable vehicle for general deterrence, denunciation and punishment – non custodial sentence imposed – bond
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited: Barbieri v R [2016] NSWCCA 295
Berrier, Steven John v R [2009] NSWCCA 40
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unreported
R v Cooper [2001] NSWSC 769
R v Howcher [2004] NSWCCA 179; 146 A Crim R 371
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v LTN [2011] NSWSC 614
R v Mathers [2011] NSWSC 339
R v MB (No 2)

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 MB

Details

AGLC: R v MB [2017] NSWSC 619
Case: [2017] NSWSC 619
Decision Date: 19 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case was charged with the manslaughter of their infant daughter. The deceased drowned in a bath, and the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment under the Crimes Act. The court heard that the defendant had been suffering from anxiety and symptoms of schizophrenia in the period leading up to the incident. The defendant believed their daughter had a genetic abnormality and acted under this delusion. Previously found unfit to be tried, the defendant was later found fit and had already served a period in custody. The court had to consider the defendant’s moral culpability, reduced by reason of their mental illness, and whether they were suitable for general deterrence, denunciation and punishment. The court decided that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, taking into account the defendant's mental state and unsuitability for imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature and quality of their act or to know that it was wrong, and whether the defendant was suitable for a non-custodial sentence. The court examined the evidence of the defendant's mental health, including expert psychiatric evidence, and considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, particularly the need to consider the defendant's moral culpability and the purposes of sentencing. The court also considered the precedents set by other cases involving defendants with mental health issues and the appropriateness of a non-custodial sentence in such circumstances.

The court found that the defendant’s mental state did substantially impair their ability to understand the nature and quality of their act or to know that it was wrong, and that their moral culpability was reduced as a result of their mental illness. The court determined that the defendant was unsuitable for general deterrence, denunciation and punishment and, given their previous period in custody, a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. The court imposed a bond with conditions, including regular psychiatric treatment and supervision. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the defendant's mental health needs and ensuring public safety through the conditions of the bond.

Orders