R v McPaul - [2025] NSWDC 171

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v McPaul [2025] NSWDC 171
Hearing dates: 3 March 2025
Date of orders: 3 March 2025
Decision date: 03 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Special verdicts – Acts proven but not criminally responsible due to a cognitive mental health impairment

Catchwords:
CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation
CRIME — Violent offences — Offensive weapon
CRIME — Domestic violence — Intimidation
MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings —Defence of mental illness — Special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness — Referral to Mental Health Review Tribunal

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500
M'Naghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718
R vMinani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
RvPorter [1933] HCA 1;(1933) 55 CLR 182
Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205
Stapleton v R [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lindon James McPaul (the accused)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Williams (for the accused)
R Kimbell (for the Crown)
Solicitors:
Jennifer Chalker Lawyer (for the accused)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/60518
Publication restriction: A pseudonym has been used for the name of the those directly impacted on by Mr McPaul’s actions, some of whom were children. Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with that order.

JUDGMENT – Ex tempore revised

Introduction

This morning when he was arraigned Lindon McPaul said that he was not guilty of six serious offences. He said that he was not guilty, not because he did not do the acts which would establish the offences, but because at the relevant time it is said he had a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment that meant that he did not know that the nature and quality of his acts, and that he did not know that the act was wrong. That is, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether each act alleged against him, as perceived by a reasonable person, was wrong.
Since 1843 the law of England and the law of Australia has been clear. A person who suffers from what is now called a mental health or cognitive impairment who, did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know the act was wrong such that he could not reason with a moderate degree or sense of composure, has been entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
For many years judge-made law applied, flowing from M'Naghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718, and later refined by judges of the High…

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 McPaul

Details

AGLC: R v McPaul [2025] NSWDC 171
Case: [2025] NSWDC 171
Decision Date: 03 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McPaul involved the appellant, McPaul, who was charged with breaking and entering a property with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, carrying an offensive weapon, and acts of intimidation. The dispute arose from a domestic incident where McPaul allegedly entered a residence with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence, was in possession of an offensive weapon, and used it to intimidate the occupants. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether McPaul was criminally responsible for his actions given his mental state at the time of the offence and, if not, whether a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness should be entered, and if so, whether he should be referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The court had to determine the extent to which McPaul's cognitive mental health impairment affected his criminal responsibility and whether the special verdict applied.

The court found that McPaul's cognitive mental health impairment significantly impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his acts or to know that they were wrong. Consequently, the court concluded that McPaul was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. The court entered special verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness, and ordered that McPaul be referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for further assessment and management. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework for special verdicts and the principles of criminal responsibility as they apply to individuals with mental health impairments.

Orders

Orders of the court

Special verdicts – Acts proven but not criminally responsible due to a cognitive mental health impairment

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 McPaul [2025] NSWDC 171
Hearing dates:	3 March 2025
Date of orders:	3 March 2025
Decision date:	03 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Special verdicts – Acts proven but not criminally responsible due to a cognitive mental health impairment
Catchwords:	CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation CRIME — Violent offences — Offensive weapon CRIME — Domestic violence — Intimidation MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings —Defence of mental illness — Special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness — Referral to Mental Health Review Tribunal
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500 M'Naghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718 R vMinani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226 RvPorter [1933] HCA 1;(1933) 55 CLR 182 Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205 Stapleton v R [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lindon James McPaul (the accused) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: P Williams (for the accused) R Kimbell (for the Crown) Solicitors: Jennifer Chalker Lawyer (for the accused) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/60518
Publication restriction:	A pseudonym has been used for the name of the those directly impacted on by Mr McPaul’s actions, some of whom were children. Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with that order.