R v Papley (No 3) - [2017] NSWSC 1415

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Papley (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1415
Hearing dates: 17 October 2017
Decision date: 17 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Ms Papley be released from custody subject to a condition that she comply with such orders as may be made from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal

Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH – s 39 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 – disposition following judge-alone murder trial – special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness – assessment of risk of danger to the person or the public if release into community – conditional release order made
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
Cases Cited: R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068
R v Papley (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1112
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Karen Papley
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr C Davenport SC (Ms Papley)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Rice More & Gibson

File Number(s): 2016/82780

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Ms Karen Papley (a pseudonym used because of the non-publication provisions of s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)) was charged with the murder of her daughter Astra (her middle name: R v Papley (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1112). The indictment alleged that the offence occurred “between 25 December 2000 and 25 December 2001 at an unknown place in the State of New South Wales”.
On 18 August 2017, after a trial by judge alone, I returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).
The child had not been seen since the period alleged in the indictment. No body has ever been found. I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Astra’s death was caused by a deliberate act or omission of Ms Papley, although I was unable to determine what that act or omission was.
Ms Papley had a long history of mental illness and there was an element of speculation about the reason why she killed her daughter. I indicated in my judgment that it seemed most probable that the child was killed in some way because she was incorporated into Ms Papley’s persecutory delusional beliefs and that Ms Papley acted in some way to save the child from Ms Papley’s mother.
A full account of the evidence, both as to the offence and Ms Papley’s history of mental illness, is set out in my judgment of 18 August 2017: R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068. It was the joint position of the parties that the defence of mental illness had been made out. I was satisfied that:

“[O]n the balance of probabilities…at the time [Ms Papley] caused the death of the deceased by an unknown act or omission she was labouring under such a defect of reason from a disease of 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 Papley (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Papley (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1415
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1415
Decision Date: 17 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Papley (No 3) was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Papley, had been convicted of murder but found not guilty by reason of mental illness under section 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The court was required to determine whether Papley should be released into the community and, if so, under what conditions. The central issue was whether Papley posed a risk to the public or himself if released.

The court considered evidence from medical professionals and other relevant parties, including Papley's history of mental illness, the likelihood of reoffending, and the effectiveness of any proposed conditions for release. The court examined whether the risk posed by Papley could be sufficiently managed to allow for his conditional release into the community. The judgment detailed the extensive analysis undertaken to assess the risk and the measures that could be implemented to mitigate it.

Ultimately, the court found that, despite the severity of the offence, the risk of Papley reoffending could be adequately managed through stringent conditions. These included ongoing psychiatric treatment, regular reporting to authorities, and restrictions on his movements and associations. The court was satisfied that the conditions would sufficiently protect the public and that Papley's mental health would be adequately managed in the community. The court made a conditional release order, allowing Papley to be released under the specified conditions.

The final orders of the court included the release of Papley into the community, subject to the conditions outlined in the judgment. These conditions were intended to ensure that Papley would receive the necessary treatment and support while also safeguarding the public. The court's decision balanced the need for public safety with the importance of providing appropriate care for individuals with mental illness.

Orders