R v Monley
[2002] NSWSC 236
•27 March 2002
CITATION: R v Monley [2002] NSWSC 236 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
CriminalFILE NUMBER(S): SC 70004/02 HEARING DATE(S): 27 March 2002 JUDGMENT DATE: 27 March 2002 PARTIES :
Regina (NSW)
Ricky Raymond Monley (Accused)JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J
COUNSEL : PS Dare (Crown)
C Lyons (Accused)SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Accused)CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - defence of mental illness LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 16(1)
Mental Health Act 1990, s 24CASES CITED: Mizzi v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v M'Naghten (1843) 10 C&F 200, 8 ER 718
Sodeman v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 192DECISION: Accused not guilty by reason of mental illness.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINALDUNFORD J
Wednesday, 27 MARCH 2002
JUDGMENT70004/02 R v Ricky Raymond MONLEY
1 DUNFORD J: The accused, Ricky Raymond Monley has pleaded not guilty to the murder of his mother, Patricia Lucy Monley, on 6 September 2001 at Merewether. He has elected to be tried by Judge alone in accordance with s 16(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The form of election has been filed, dated 7 March 2002, and the accused’s signature is witnessed by a solicitor who certifies that before making the election the accused sought and received advice from her in relation to it.
2 The only issue in the trial has been the defence raised by the accused of mental illness and, by consent, all the evidence has been tendered by the admission of written statements.
3 The accused was born on 28 June 1970, educated to Year 9, and on leaving school had a variety of labouring jobs. He last worked in about 1998, when he was placed on a disability pension for depression and schizophrenia. He has a longstanding history of cannabis use and intravenous injection of amphetamines and heroin.
4 The deceased was the 69-year-old mother of the accused with whom he resided in accommodation provided by the Department of Housing at Merewether.
5 Sometime between 3.30 and 4pm on Thursday 6 September 2001 a neighbour of the deceased, Ms Natalie Saunders, heard the deceased calling out the name of her fiancée, Eric. She sensed something was wrong because of the tone of the deceased’s voice and ran downstairs to investigate. She opened the front screen door and could hear the deceased still calling for Eric but, she went on, “it started to sound like a gurgling sound when she was trying to sing out to him”.
6 Ms Saunders ran down the hallway to the deceased’s bedroom and, stopping at the doorway, she saw the deceased lying on the bed on her back with the accused on top of her. As she entered the room the accused climbed off the deceased. She said to him, “Rick, what is going on, is everything all right?” The accused looked at her but made no reply.
7 Ms Saunders saw that the deceased was covered in blood, was making choking sounds and her front teeth appeared to be missing. At the same time she saw the accused holding what appeared to be a steak knife in his left hand. He had blood on his face and upper clothing.
8 About this time Ms Saunders’ fiancé, Mr Eric Pirnke, entered the deceased’s flat, noted the injuries to the deceased, and tried to revive her. In the meantime Ms Saunders summoned an ambulance. The accused attempted to leave the unit on two occasions but each time he was restrained and brought back. Shortly afterwards police and ambulance arrived.
9 Senior Constable Ryan approached the accused who was seated in a second bedroom. The accused said to him, “I’ve had a blue with Mum, I think I’ve killed her”. Shortly afterwards he was arrested and taken to Newcastle Police Station where a recorded interview was held. There were difficulties in the conduct of the interview with the accused not answering numerous questions and other questions were answered in a muffled voice.
10 In summary the accused said that he couldn’t remember properly what happened because he had been getting ringing in his ears which drove him mad and made him feel “not normal”. He said he only had two days to live because he had cancer, that there was a conspiracy against him, he had been poisoned by his family who put poison in his methadone and his food, lacing it with chemicals. He knew he was being poisoned because every time he touched something his mother and his brother Danny cleaned it up. He said his food and everything he drank had been poisoned. He was told to kill his mother; he was given directions to "take her out”.
11 He said it should not have happened but it did “because of the bugs”. He got a knife from the kitchen. He said it was “really not my fault” because he was receiving signals from the bugs, “cause someone told me to give me the message to do it, to take her out”.
12 He said that in the days before the incident his mother had been driving him mad and making fun of him all the time and didn’t want him around any more. He maintained that people were poisoning him and when told he was to be charged with the murder of his mother, he said “How come everyone else is getting away with it?”.
13 On 7 September an autopsy was performed on the body of Mrs Monley by Dr Kevin Lee, Senior Forensic Pathologist. He attributed the cause of death to multiple stab wounds, puncturing in particular the left chest, damaging both lungs and the aorta. The injuries were consistent with infliction by a knife seen behind the bedroom door of the deceased’s premises and taken into police possession. He identified 15 separate stab wounds.
14 In view of the fact that when Ms Saunders went to the premises she saw the accused astride the deceased who was covered in blood with the accused holding what appeared to be a steak knife and with blood on his face and upper clothing, and having regard to the admissions made to the police at the scene and in the recorded interview, I am satisfied that it was the act of the accused that caused the death of the deceased by inflicting the stab wounds.
15 I am also satisfied, having regard to what appears in the recorded interview, that the stabbing of the deceased was the willed and intentional act of the accused in response to the so called “directions” and was unrelated to any issue of self-defence or accident.
16 Having regard to the nature and extent of the wounds as disclosed in the autopsy report of Dr Lee and the accused’s assertions in the recorded interview that he was told to kill his mother and given directions to “take her out”, I am satisfied that the accused intended to kill the deceased.
17 The onus of establishing mental illness is on the accused on the balance of probabilities: Mizzi v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 659. The accused’s brother, Danny Monley, in his statement said that the accused had been diagnosed with depression about 18 months to 2 years before the incident, and was also on a methadone program. He was aware the accused had been previously admitted to the James Fletcher Hospital - a hospital for the mentally ill in Newcastle - over the past 2 years but was unaware of any diagnosis as to his mental condition.
18 He said that on 2 September, four days before her death, their mother told him that she was scared because the accused had threatened her, a concern which was repeated to him on the morning of 5 September when she told him that the accused had not been sleeping for the past few nights and had been walking around the unit.
19 Danny Monley had slept the previous night at the unit. In the morning he and the accused went off to get their methadone. Even though the accused was on a daily dose of methadone he changed his mind and walked off without it. The previous days he had told Danny he thought the deceased was trying to poison his food. Their mother had said that when the accused was better she wanted him to move out of the unit.
20 Four days earlier, on 2 September, in response to a call from the deceased, Senior Constable Paul Kremer went to the deceased’s address looking for the accused. He found him nearby and the accused said to him, “Are you going to call an ambulance for me because I am dying. She is poisoning me”. He also told Senior Constable Kremer that the accused had woken in a bad mood, thrown things around his room, and stormed out with the dog and had not slept for about 3 days.
21 It appears from Dr Nielssen’s report that on that morning (2 September) the accused was taken to the James Fletcher Hospital by police pursuant to s 24 of the Mental Health Act 1990. Triage notes indicate that he said he believed his mother was poisoning him. He was assessed to have a semi-urgent condition and would be of medium risk of harm to others. But, he apparently absconded at 8.05am and there was no note as regarding follow up arranged.
22 The accused was interviewed and assessed on 30 November 2001 by Dr Bruce Westmore who furnished a report dated 6 December 2001. This consultation was arranged and the report prepared on behalf of the accused. In that consultation the accused told Dr Westmore about the voices which he had been hearing for a number of years. He said he had been, since the age of 17, to the James Fletcher Hospital about 20 times “for speed psychosis”; that he had been on medication but at times did not take the medication. He said that the voices told him, “to kill me father, to kill me brother and sister but I’ve never acted on it. This time I did because I thought me Mum was poisoning me”.
23 Dr Westmore was of the opinion that at the time he killed his mother the accused was acutely psychotic suffering from a schizophrenic illness, this condition possibly aggravated by substance abuse and, in particular, he referred to the command auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs regarding his mother and the acute argument which precipitated his attack on her.
24 He was of the opinion that he was suffering from a disease of the mind, specifically a schizophrenic illness, which would have totally deprived him of his capacity to know that he ought not to do the act which he did and that, accordingly, he had available to him a defence of mental illness.
25 The accused was also examined on behalf of the Crown on 27 February 2002 by Dr Olav Nielssen whose report is dated 22 March 2002. He related very much the same psychiatric history and the same symptoms as Dr Westmore. He had access to the medical notes of the Hunter Area Health Service which included presentations for what was described as substance induced psychosis from January 1999. Other assessments have noted a high risk of harm to self and others.
26 He was of the view that the accused’s answers in the recorded interview suggested the presence of disorganised thinking and auditory hallucinations affecting his understanding of the questions put to him.
27 He considered the admissions made in that interview were probably quite reliable as the account he gave is consistent with other accounts he gave of his experiences at the time of the offence. In Dr Nielssen’s view he is not sophisticated or intelligent enough to fabricate typical signs and symptoms of mental illness and his answers were not typical of feigned mental illness.
28 He went on to say that he believed the accused was acutely mentally ill at the time of the recorded interview, later on the evening of the day of the killing, and was probably not able to give informed consent to be interviewed, but the interview was of considerable assistance in establishing his state of mind at the time of the offence.
29 Dr Nielssen was of the opinion that the accused had a defect of reason in the form of a delusional belief that his mother was poisoning him arising from a condition recognised as a disease of the mind, namely an acute episode of chronic schizophrenia. He said that at the time of the offence the accused was experiencing auditory hallucinations of voices urging him to kill his mother who he believed was trying to kill him and that he was unable to reason with any degree of composure about his actions or recognise that his actions were morally wrong and he had the defence of mental illness open to him.
30 I am, therefore, satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time when he killed his mother the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind which deprived him of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or, if he did, that what he was doing was wrong: R v M’Naghten (1843) 10 C&F 200, 8 ER 718 at 722, Sodeman v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 192 at 215.
31 I, therefore, find the accused, Ricky Raymond Monley, not guilty by reason of mental illness and enter verdict and judgment accordingly.
32 I order that the accused, Ricky Raymond Monley, be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.
0
2
2