R v Reid (No. 1)

[2021] NSWSC 170

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Reid (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 170

Hearing dates:

25 February 2021, 26 February 2021

Date of orders:

26 February 2021

Decision date:

26 February 2021

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Johnson J

Decision:

Application made by media representatives for access to the specified exhibits is declined.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing hearing – manslaughter – substantial impairment – offender killed parents – mental condition of offender including suicidal ideation – application by media for access to exhibits – relevant discretionary factors – risk of harm to surviving family members from publication of contents of exhibits – caution required given suicidal content of material – application for access declined

Legislation Cited:

---

Cases Cited:

R v Dirani (No 33) [2019] NSWSC 288

R v Xu (No 1) (2005) 152 A Crim R 17; [2005] NSWSC 73

Texts Cited:

---

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
David Reid (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr MM Hobart SC (Crown)
Mr JL Glissan QC; Mr K Manion (Offender)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Glissan & Associates Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s):

2019/248625

Publication restriction:

---

Judgment

1. JOHNSON J: Yesterday and today, the Court has been undertaking a sentencing hearing with respect to the Offender, David Reid, who has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter on 6 August 2019 of his parents, Diana Reid and Victor Graham Reid.

2. The Offender was originally charged with the murder of his parents. The Crown has accepted pleas of guilty to manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment in full discharge of the indictment.

3. The undisputed fact is that on the morning of 6 August 2019, the Offender stabbed to death his mother and then his father in the home in which he was living with them at Sutherland. He was 46 years of age at that time.

4. The Court, in the last two days, has heard substantial psychiatric and psychological evidence with respect to the Offender. It is common ground between the expert witnesses that, at the time of these terrible events on 6 August 2019, the Offender was experiencing significant mental health issues, so as to give rise to the existence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind.

5. The psychiatric and psychological evidence is complex. There are still outstanding issues about the correct diagnosis, but there is no dispute about the magnitude of the mental health condition which was affecting the Offender at the time of these events.

6. It is apparent from the evidence that the Offender had no prior history of violence. He had developed over a period of time self-destructive thought processes, which were manifested in certain writings by him which are in evidence before the Court.

7. Having conducted the hearing in the last two days, there is an application made by representatives of the media for access to a number of documentary exhibits in the case, including the statement of facts, the written submissions, the victim impact statements, and psychiatric and psychological reports. All of this material was tendered in open court. It is not subject to any non-publication order.

8. I approach the application by the media for access to this material with the principles in mind as stated in R v Dirani (No 33) [2019] NSWSC 288 at [36] to [59]. The Court keeps firmly in mind the open justice principle.

9. There is no impediment to the media publishing anything that has been said in open court in the last two days in this sentencing hearing. A fair report of the evidence and the submissions, and what has been said in Court, is available to be made. The Court is conscious of the important role of the media in being, in effect, the eyes and ears of the general public with respect to court proceedings.

10. There are a number of particular factors which have been raised which are relevant to this application. Victim impact statements were made by Andrew Reid, the brother of the Offender, and his wife, Milly Reid. Andrew Reid was in Court yesterday and today, and Milly Reid was in Court yesterday.

11. Their victim impact statements and, indeed, other evidence before the Court, make clear that the events whereby the Offender killed his parents have had a devastating effect on the family, including the children of Andrew Reid and Milly Reid.

12. The media application has been the subject of discussion by the Crown with Andrew Reid. Mr Reid has raised entirely reasonable concerns about the extent and breadth of publicity with respect to the case. It is to be expected that there will be publicity about this case. I have been informed that there already has been publicity at the time of the events of August 2019.

13. The media may report these proceedings and when I come to sentence the Offender, there can be reporting of what is said there.

14. The question now is whether the detail contained in many of these documents is such that it is essential for the media to have it for the purpose of a fair report of what happened yesterday and today in Court. I will, of course, make findings of fact and refer to the evidence in such detail as is necessary when I come to sentence the Offender.

15. The statement of facts contains a range of material with respect to what the Offender said to different persons and what his thought processes were. What he said in his writings was placed on [a social media platform]. The content of this says a great deal about the thought processes of the Offender.

16. It would be quite understandable that any family member who came to read or hear what the Offender wrote would be distressed in significant ways about what was said about the deceased father and mother of the Offender. I emphasise that what the Offender appears to be saying in these writings is likely the product of a deluded mind. However, for the purpose of family readership, including children, it is likely to have a distressing effect.

17. The psychiatric reports of Dr Adam Martin, Dr Olav Nielssen and Dr Stephen Allnutt and the psychological report of Dr Susan Pulman go into great detail about many aspects of the matter. Scenarios were raised, opinions were expressed and the subject matter is sensitive.

18. The mere fact that the content is sensitive is not a reason for it to be withheld from the media. However, the Court has to consider the cumulative circumstances relevant to this application.

19. In R v Dirani (No 33) at [59], I referred to some factors that bear on the exercise of discretion when a media application of this sort is made. The application in that case, of course, was made in proceedings which were significantly distant from these. That was a terrorist case, but there were, nevertheless, family members of Mr Curtis Cheng who were likely to be distressed by publication of certain material.

20. In this entirely different context, I am satisfied that the family members, being Andrew Reid, his wife Milly and their children (and indeed other members of the family who have made statements or been part of this investigation), may suffer significant distress from any wide publication of material contained in the statement of facts or the psychiatric reports.

21. There is, however, a further feature. The material in question touches upon, in a nihilistic way, the issue of self-harm and suicide with the thought processes of a troubled person revealed in a level of disturbed detail.

22. The community is well aware that caution is to be exercised about the publication of stories or reports, which touch on issues of self-harm. There are many persons in the community who are vulnerable and at risk of triggering events even through exposure of someone else's story. Members of the community are well aware of the constant offer of advice to persons who are troubled by stories in the context of self-harm. It seems to me that this aspect is intertwined with the subject matter of this application.

23. In the end, I do not think that a fair reporting of what has happened in Court yesterday and today must involve the making available of this material to the media. My sentencing remarks will be available in due course.

24. I am conscious that issues of this type have been raised in earlier cases. In R v Xu (No 1) (2005) 152 A Crim R 17; [2005] NSWSC 73, Kirby J, in the context of a murder trial, declined to grant access to certain material because of the possible consequences of the publication of the material, which involved a mother killing her child. There was psychiatric evidence in that case concerning the consequences that can flow from publications of that type and the risk of persons imitating or being affected by such publications. That case, of course, is different to this one, but there are some overlapping issues.

25. It seems to me that the appropriate course, at this stage, is to decline the applications by the media for access to the material which has been sought.

26. When I sentence the Offender, my sentencing remarks will be available to be published. I will seek to choose my words carefully, so that there can be a proper understanding of the case, but with the Court seeking to exercise its function without exacerbating the position in any unacceptable way for the surviving family members who have to live with this tragedy.

27. If the media have a desire to make further application to the Court that, of course, is open to them. What I will do is have the judgment I am presently delivering made available, not only to the parties but to the Court's Media Officer in case there is any desire to make further application to the Court. In addition, it is important that there be an understanding as to why the Court is taking this approach in this unusual case.

28. Accordingly, the application made by media representatives for access to the specified exhibits is declined.

**********

Amendments

10 May 2021 - [15] - Anonymisation of website.

Decision last updated: 10 May 2021