R v RB - [2020] NSWSC 1552

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RB [2020] NSWSC 1552
Hearing dates: 2 November 2020, 3 November 2020,
Date of orders: 4 November 2020
Decision date: 04 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. Pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is returned with respect to count 1 of the indictment of 3 August 2020.
2. Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), RB is to be detained in a correctional facility, or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
3. I direct that the Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders.
4. I direct that the Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of my verdict and of these orders. I also direct that the Registrar provide the Tribunal with a copy of these reasons and orders, a copy of the indictment, and copies of trial exhibits A51, A53, A54, A57, B1–B4 and Exs. 1 and 2.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – defence of mental illness – judge alone trial – accused with chronic schizophrenia – drug and alcohol use exacerbating illness – not guilty by reason of mental illness

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
Radford v R (1985) 42 SASR 266; (1985) 20 A Crim R 388
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49
R v Jenkins [1964] NSWR 721; (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20; (1963) 81 WN (Pt 2) (NSW) 44
R v Michaux [1984] 2 Qd R 159; (1984) 13 A Crim R 173
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
R vTumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
Taylor v R (1978) 45 FLR 343; 22 ALR 599

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
RB (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Watts (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/00357083
Publication restriction:
Nil.
Note: a non-publication order prohibits publication of any material which could identify LB, including material which identifies his relatives, including the accused and deceased.

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: On 2 November 2020 the accused, RB, was arraigned before me on an indictment charging him as follows:

On 17 November 2018, at Tweed Heads in the State of New South Wales, did murder [Baby Q].

A plea of not guilty was entered to the charge.
An order for a trial by judge alone pursuant to s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) having been made on 7 August 2020, the trial proceeded without a jury.
There being no dispute as to the matters of fact alleged against…

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 RB

Details

AGLC: R v RB [2020] NSWSC 1552
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1552
Decision Date: 04 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, RB, was charged with murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. RB, who suffered from chronic schizophrenia, killed his father during a psychotic episode exacerbated by drug and alcohol use. The trial was conducted before a judge alone due to the accused’s plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The central issue for the court was to determine whether RB's mental illness, coupled with his substance abuse, rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intent to commit murder at the time of the offence.

The court considered the definition and elements of murder, the criteria for establishing a defence of mental illness, and the impact of drug and alcohol use on mental capacity. The prosecution argued that RB’s actions, despite his illness, demonstrated a deliberate intention to kill, thus fulfilling the criteria for murder. The defence contended that RB’s chronic schizophrenia, compounded by his substance abuse, had impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions or to appreciate that what he was doing was wrong. The court had to weigh the evidence regarding RB’s mental state, his history of mental illness, and the effect of his drug and alcohol use on his capacity to form the necessary intent for murder.

After careful consideration of the evidence, the court found that RB's chronic schizophrenia, together with his drug and alcohol use, significantly impaired his mental capacity at the time of the offence. The court concluded that RB lacked the requisite intent to commit murder due to his substantial mental impairment. Consequently, the court found RB not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court ordered RB’s detention in a secure mental health facility until he was deemed no longer to be a danger to the community or himself.

Orders