R v PCB - [2012] NSWSC 482

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PCB [2012] NSWSC 482
Hearing dates: 3 May 2012
Decision date: 11 May 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Verdicts of not guilty on each count by reason of mental illness, with a detention order and associated orders made under s.39 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - judge alone trial - charges of murder, wound with intent to murder and possess offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence - defence of mental illness - acts committed whilst Accused experiencing acute psychotic episode - chronic paranoid schizophrenia - auditory hallucinations - verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness - detention order made
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77; 105 CLR 659
R v Rodriguez [2010] NSWSC 198
R v Pratt [2009] NSWSC 1108
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
PCB (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr TW Thorpe (Crown)
Mr P Winch (Accused)
Solicitors:
NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Accused)

File Number(s): 2010/333991
Publication restriction: Section 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication or broadcasting of the name of the deceased child or any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the deceased child

Judgment

JOHNSON J: At the commencement of his trial on 3 May 2012, the Accused, PCB, pleaded not guilty to each of the following charges contained in an indictment:

(a)Count 1: On 9 October 2010 at Liverpool he murdered C (s.18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900);

(b)Count 2: On 9 October 2010 at Liverpool he wounded Jazued Ahmed with intent to murder (s.27 Crimes Act 1900);

(c)Count 3: On 9 October 2010 at Liverpool he wounded Rajesh Ram with intent to murder (s.27 Crimes Act 1900);

(d)Count 4: In the alternative to Count 3, on 9 October 2010 at Liverpool he wounded Rajesh Ram with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s.33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900);

(e)Count 5: On 9 October 2010 at Liverpool he possessed an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely assault Constable Robert Soprenic, a police officer, in the execution of his duty (s.33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900).

C, the victim in Count 1, was the 12-year old son of the Accused. As a result, the name of C must not be published or broadcast, nor may a reference to any information, picture or other material be published or broadcast that identifies C, or is likely to lead to the identification of C: s.15A(1) and (4) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Both the Crown Prosecutor and counsel for the Accused proposed that the best way to ensure compliance with the terms of s.15A was to use initials for the names 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 PCB

Details

AGLC: R v PCB [2012] NSWSC 482
Case: [2012] NSWSC 482
Decision Date: 11 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v PCB, the defendant faced charges of murder, wounding with intent to murder, and possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence. The dispute involved whether the defendant was criminally responsible for his actions during a period when he was experiencing an acute psychotic episode due to his chronic paranoid schizophrenia. The matter was heard by a single judge in the Supreme Court of the state. The defence argued that the defendant's actions were the result of his mental illness, which rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his actions or that they were wrong.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant could be held criminally liable for his actions, given his state of mind at the time, and whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite mens rea for each of the offences. The court also had to consider the defence of mental illness and whether the defendant's chronic paranoid schizophrenia and acute psychotic episode at the time of the acts could be considered a substantial impairment of mental or cognitive capacities.

The court found that the defendant was not criminally responsible for his actions as he was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time, which resulted in a substantial impairment of his mental or cognitive capacities. The court accepted expert evidence that the defendant was experiencing an acute psychotic episode, characterised by auditory hallucinations and a severely impaired capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions or that they were wrong. The court held that the prosecution had not discharged the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite mens rea for the offences charged. The court therefore acquitted the defendant of all charges on the basis of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court made a detention order under the mental health legislation, as the defendant remained a risk to himself and others.

No further orders were made by the court. The defendant was ordered to be detained in a secure mental health facility, pending a review of his mental health status and risk profile.

Orders