R v Reid (No. 2)

[2021] NSWSC 475

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Reid (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 475

Hearing dates:

25 February 2021, 26 February 2021

Date of orders:

7 May 2021

Decision date:

07 May 2021

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Johnson J

Decision:

1. The Offender, David Reid, is convicted of the offences of manslaughter of Diana Reid and Victor Graham Reid committed at Sutherland on 6 August 2019.

2. For those offences, the Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years and six months, comprising a non-parole period of five years and six months commencing on 6 August 2019 and expiring on 5 February 2025 with a balance of term of five years commencing on 6 February 2025 and expiring on 5 February 2030.

3. The first day upon which the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 6 February 2025.

4. The Registrar is requested to forward to Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network a copy of each of the reports of Dr Stephen Allnutt, Dr Adam Martin, Dr Olav Nielssen and Dr Susan Pulman to which reference has been made in these sentencing remarks, together with a copy of these remarks.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing following pleas of guilty – two counts of manslaughter – substantial impairment by abnormality of mind – Offender killed mother and father in family home – Offender experiencing severe depression and suicidal ideation – assessment of factors relevant on sentence for manslaughter – totality – aggregate sentence imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Crimes Act 1900

Mental Health Act 2007

Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Cases Cited:

Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

R v Cahill (No. 4) [2018] NSWSC 1896

R v Connors [2018] NSWSC 1439

R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363

R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82

R v Gommeson (2014) 243 A Crim R 534; [2014] NSWCCA 159

R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 535

R v Tarrant [2018] NSWSC 774

Tarrant v R [2018] NSWCCA 21

Texts Cited:

---

Category:

Sentence

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:

---

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1. JOHNSON J: The Offender, David Reid, is before the Court for sentence for the manslaughter of his parents, Diana Reid and Victor Graham (known as “Graham”) Reid.

2. The Offender resided with his parents at their home in Sutherland and had done so for many years. On the morning of 6 August 2019, the Offender stabbed to death his mother as she ate breakfast in the dining room of their Sutherland home before moving to a bedroom where he inflicted fatal knife wounds to his father. The Offender, then aged 47 years, was affected by significant mental illness. There was no rational explanation for these homicidal attacks. He had no prior criminal history or any history of violence.

3. The process of sentencing the Offender is complex and requires the Court to reflect on sentence the taking of two lives in criminal acts committed by a mentally disturbed person with no prior conflict with the criminal law.

Manslaughter by Reason of Substantial Impairment

4. On 4 September 2020, the Offender was arraigned in the Supreme Court upon an indictment charging the murder of his parents. He pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment, and the Crown accepted those pleas in full discharge of the indictment.

5. The Offender is to be sentenced for manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment under s.23A Crimes Act 1900 as it stood prior to amendment on 27 March 2021 by the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.

6. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years: s.24 Crimes Act 1900.

The Sentencing Hearing

7. The sentencing hearing proceeded on 25 and 26 February 2021. A substantial volume of documentary material was tendered by the Crown (Exhibit A) and by the defence (Exhibit 1).

8. Mr Alexander Platt, an uncle of the Offender, gave evidence in the defence case on sentence (T6-8).

9. Dr Adam Martin, psychiatrist, had prepared reports for the Crown concerning the Offender. Dr Stephen Allnutt, psychiatrist, Dr Olav Nielssen, psychiatrist, and Dr Susan Pulman, psychologist, prepared reports for the defence. Those reports formed part of the documentary material in evidence at the sentencing hearing.

10. Dr Martin and Dr Pulman gave evidence concurrently on 25 February 2021 (T12-31). Dr Allnutt was not available to give evidence on that day, but did so on 26 February 2021 (T37-63).

11. A folder containing Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (“Justice Health”) records with respect to the Offender from 13 August 2019 to 27 February 2020 was tendered at the sentencing hearing (Exhibit B). As this material was incomplete, the Crown issued a subpoena directed to Justice Health to obtain up-to-date and complete material, with a further folder being tendered on sentence which contained the complete Justice Health records for the Offender for the period 13 August 2019 to 3 March 2021 (Exhibit C).

12. The Court received written submissions on sentence from the Crown and counsel for the Offender and counsel addressed the Court on sentence at the sentencing hearing. Further written submissions were made by counsel after the sentencing hearing addressing the complete Justice Health records (Exhibit C) which had been produced to the Court under subpoena after the sentencing hearing.

Facts of Offences

13. What follows is drawn from the documentary material tendered by the Crown and the defence at the sentencing hearing, which included an Agreed Statement of Facts and statements from members of the Offender’s family and his former work colleagues. There is no real factual dispute or controversy arising from the evidence.

Family Background

14. The Offender was born in September 1972 and was nearly 47 years old at the time of the offences. He is the elder of two sons, being two years older than his brother, Andrew. The Offender is a single man with no children.

15. The Offender’s parents married in 1970 and moved into their Sutherland home soon after. The parents attended regularly a nearby church where they were members of the congregation.

16. At the time of their deaths on 6 August 2019, Diana Reid was 71 years old and Graham Reid was 75 years old.

17. The Offender’s younger brother, Andrew Reid, described his parents as being very caring in the boys’ formative years. The parents were very loving and supportive of the Offender and Andrew, and the sons also attended church regularly from a young age.

18. Andrew described the Offender, in his teenage years, as being more introverted than himself and having fewer friends.

19. The Offender completed secondary education and obtained a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from the University of New South Wales in 1995. In 1998, he obtained a position as a software engineer with a company which produced poker machines. He was still in that employment at the time of the offences in August 2019. In recent years, the Offender expressed unhappiness with that work.

20. During his university years, the Offender’s behaviour changed due to his consumption of alcohol. Andrew would often come home to find the Offender passed out. Several neighbours also commented about the Offender’s drinking problem, including their experience in assisting the Offender home when he was passed out in the street or near the front lawn.

21. From about 1994, Andrew described the Offender as becoming more distant and creating a wall around himself. The Offender started playing video games and his drinking increased. Andrew’s relationship with the Offender deteriorated from this point onwards and they have not been close since then.

Events From 2015 to 2018

22. In 2015, the Offender took three weeks off work and travelled to Broome with Alex and Jenny Platt, his aunt and uncle.

23. During the 2015 trip, the Offender said he was unhappy with his job and was getting no help.

24. In 2018, the Offender stayed with Alex and Jenny Platt for a week at their home in the Hunter region. Alex Platt had invited the Offender to stay with them because he was worried about the Offender. He thought the Offender was depressed and not in a good frame of mind. During that week, the Offender showed signs of improvement.

25. When the Offender returned home, he purchased a car and started driving again, having not driven since his early 20s after a motor vehicle accident.

Events in 2019 Prior to 6 August 2019

26. The software manager at the Offender’s employer described his quality of work as ranging from very good to poor in recent years. At its worst, several years ago, the Offender was noticed sleeping at his work desk a number of times a week. After a warning, the Offender’s performance had improved, but during meetings in 2019, the employer had found it very difficult to get a direct answer from the Offender and would sometimes have to wait in silence for a minute to obtain a response from him.

27. In March 2019, the Offender’s employer asked police to conduct a welfare check on him because he had not attended work for a number of days. Police attended the Sutherland home and the Offender answered the door. He said that he had not been at work because he did not want to go. He told police that his parents were overseas so he was home alone. Police asked to come inside the house because they could detect a strong smell which proved to be rotting food in the kitchen. The house was in a dishevelled state.

28. The Offender had not received psychiatric treatment or been on psychiatric medication. Nor had he received any psychological counselling prior to 2019.

29. On 19 March 2019, the Offender attended an initial counselling appointment with a counselling service. The session notes from that counselling session indicated that the Offender “appeared nervous and distracted when he came today”, that he had never had counselling before and came “because he felt like a failure of a person” who lived at home with his parents and had never lived anywhere else. According to the author of the notes, there “appears to be some blame on his parents for ‘keeping’ him at home” with the Offender feeling “his job was worthless and meaningless” and he “appears to feel defeated”.

30. In a conversation with a work colleague in about May 2019, the Offender made comments which were critical of his parents.

31. On 6 June 2019, the Offender attended an appointment with a psychologist. The psychologist noted that the Offender “was reserved and spoke slowly in a pensive manner” and “had trouble articulating his thoughts and generally appeared fragile and unsure of himself”. The Offender expressed dissatisfaction with his achievements in life with the Offender stating that his “mother is critical” and that he felt like “they [his parents] have given up on me”.

32. On 26 July 2019, Alex Platt called the Offender who said that he (the Offender) was concerned about his parents “with me living here they’re not resolving their problems”.

33. On Sunday, 4 August 2019, the Offender’s father rang Andrew Reid to talk about a future family holiday to the Blue Mountains. Andrew was married with two children. The intention was for Andrew’s family to share a holiday with his parents, but the Offender was not invited.

34. A family member described the Offender as a “man child” in the sense that he was not responsible for himself and his mother still cooked and washed for him. The Offender had never had a girlfriend and he was described as a “loner”. The Offender would spend long periods in the family home playing computer games or pacing around the back garden.

35. At times, there were heated discussions between the Offender and his parents about it being time for him to move out of home. Sometimes after these discussions, the Offender and his parents would not talk for days or weeks.

The Offender’s Document Repository on a Social Media Platform

36. Following the arrest of the Offender on 6 August 2019, police obtained his mobile telephone, the contents of which were downloaded. Police accessed the Offender’s online document repository on a social media platform.

37. The Offender had uploaded a significant number of documents, all of which were short written pieces or musings with different headings. Many documents had been uploaded on 3 June 2018 with the document titles referring to his parents, the term “Man child”, “The levels of suicide”, “Where it went wrong for me”, “How I went wrong” and “Need for friends”.

38. The Offender’s writings on the social media platform included criticisms of his parents.

39. Of particular significance is a folder entitled “Why” which contained documents uploaded to the social media platform on 5 and 6 August 2019 entitled “Final notice”, “My suicide”, “Peter Pan syndrome”, “The absence of God”, “Things are going bad” and “Adios”.

40. The entries under the headings “Final notice”, “my suicide” and “Things are going bad” revealed self-destructive thoughts and feelings of despair and pointlessness on the part of the Offender.

41. The Offender’s writings uploaded on 5 and 6 August 2019 contain a graphic and contemporaneous account of his thought processes at the time he killed his parents on 6 August 2019.

42. Tragically, the Offender had not received, by that time, the psychiatric treatment which he so clearly needed for his significant mental health problems.

Events on 6 August 2019

43. On the morning of Tuesday 6 August 2019, the Offender walked into the dining room of the Sutherland home and stabbed his mother several times in the back and chest whilst she was seated at the dining table eating breakfast. The Offender then walked to the bedroom and stabbed his father to death whilst he was in or getting out of bed.

44. At 7.51 am on 6 August 2019, the Offender made a “000” call from the Sutherland home. In response to an enquiry as to why an ambulance and police were required, he said “Murder-suicide” and stated that he wished to commit suicide. He told the “000” operator that he was alone in the house. When asked if something had triggered the way he felt, the Offender said “It’s been building up for a long time”.

45. At 8.13 am, police responded to the “000” call that a person was armed with a knife and was threatening self-harm at the Sutherland home. Police arrived at the scene at the same time as two ambulance paramedics. The front door of the house was open and the screen door was ajar. On entering the house, police observed the body of Diana Reid slumped over a chair at the dining table with blood pooling on the carpet under her arms.

46. Police immediately left the house and told the ambulance crew to retreat with an urgent call being made for police backup. In response to a police request to leave the house, the Offender walked out the front door. He was wearing only underwear and a pair of glasses. He was covered in blood and was holding his arms out and appeared to be bleeding badly from both hands.

47. In response to questions from the police officers, the Offender nodded and mumbled something softly and then said “I killed my parents”. The Offender was asked further questions with the conversation being recorded by body-worn video camera. The Offender said “I stabbed my parents … and tried to commit suicide”. When asked why, the Offender said “Because they refused to speak the things I needed to hear for a long, long time”.

48. Whilst police officers were speaking to the Offender outside the house, other police officers entered the premises. A large kitchen knife was located near the bathroom sink and the blade of the knife was covered in blood.

49. At the rear of the house in a bedroom, police discovered the body of Graham Reid lying on the floor beside the bed.

Medical Examination of Offender on 6 August 2019

50. The Offender was taken to Sutherland Hospital by ambulance where he was seen by Dr Joanne Short. Dr Short pointed to a laceration on the Offender’s left forearm and he confirmed that he had tried to kill himself.

51. In the course of the conversation with Dr Short, the Offender was asked whether he regretted what he had done and he said “It’s more, well I regret a lot of things”. The Offender told Dr Short that he lived with his parents “and have no friends or girlfriend” and that he worked in software and that he did not take any regular medication. When asked whether he had an argument with his parents that morning, the Offender said “No, it just has been going on for a long time and they don’t see things … They try to put out subtle hints, but they don’t say this is the problem”.

52. When asked by Dr Short whether something had triggered events that morning, the Offender said “Just a feeling of pointlessness and there is no future”. When asked by Dr Short whether he had any hobbies, the Offender said “I suppose this was part of the problem, one of my hobbies was to play video games”. When asked why he had not gone to work the previous day, the Offender said “I was sick of the work because the way they do things, they take advantage of stupid people”.

53. When asked by Dr Short whether he had written a suicide note, the Offender said “More or less. You can look up that stuff on [he named the social media platform]”.

54. The Offender was introduced to Dr Sophie Kavanagh, psychiatrist, who examined the Offender at 2.30 pm that day. Dr Kavanagh’s notes include the following:

“There is definite evidence of persecutory ideation and some possible disorder of thought (although this may be his usual communication style) which requires further assessment to rule out an underlying psychotic illness.”

55. Dr Kavanagh considered that the Offender remained a risk of further self-harm at that time.

56. The Offender’s finger had been injured by the knife and required surgery, including tendon and nerve repair. For that reason, the Offender was transferred to the Prince of Wales Hospital on 6 August 2019 and surgery took place at that hospital on 8 August 2019.

Further Psychiatric Examination of the Offender on 9 August 2019

57. The Offender was interviewed by Dr Swapnil Sharma, psychiatrist, on 9 August 2019. Dr Sharma noted that the assessment and nursing report did not suggest an acute psychotic or major mood disorder, although a chronic mental health condition could not be ruled out which could include Asperger’s Syndrome or schizoid personality disorder.

The Offender is Charged on 10 August 2019

58. The Offender was discharged from Prince of Wales Hospital on 10 August 2019 and was conveyed to a nearby police station.

59. At about 12.00 pm on 10 August 2019, the Offender was offered the opportunity to participate in an electronically recorded interview with police, but declined to answer questions about the incident in the presence of his legal representatives. The Offender consented to a forensic procedure and a sample of his DNA was taken by way of buccal swab.

60. The Offender was charged with the murder of his parents. He has been in custody continuously since his arrest on 6 August 2019.

61. The Offender has no prior criminal history.

62. An autopsy with respect to Diana Reid indicated that she had sustained two stab wounds to the left upper back and a stab wound on the left side of the neck with the cause of death being stab wounds to the chest and neck. An autopsy with respect to Graham Reid concluded that he had died of multiple stab wounds to the chest.

Substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind

63. The Crown accepted the Offender’s plea of guilty to manslaughter on each count by reason of substantial impairment arising from an abnormality of mind for the purpose of s.23A Crimes Act 1900.

64. There was a consensus and consistency of opinion from Dr Allnutt, Dr Martin, Dr Nielssen and Dr Pulman that the Offender had available to him the partial defence of substantial impairment, with an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition of major depressive disorder on a background of personality disorder and alcohol use disorder, so that his capacity to judge whether his actions were right or wrong was substantially impaired by that abnormality of mind arising from the underlying condition.

63. All experts agreed that there was a direct nexus between the offences and the Offender’s severely distorted cognition as part of a pervasive and severe depressive condition, with a warped nihilistic view of himself and the world, anger and suicidal ideation with his severely abnormal thought processes being the motivating force behind the violence.

The Medical Evidence and Justice Health Records Concerning the Offender

66. Apart from Dr Allnutt, Dr Pulman and Dr Martin who gave evidence at the sentencing hearing, the Offender was examined, as well, by Dr Olav Nielssen who provided a report dated 14 April 2020 which was tendered at the sentencing hearing.

67. The Justice Health records with respect to the Offender contain assessments made of him and treatment provided to him whilst in custody. The Offender has been housed in different correctional centres during the course of his time in custody including the Mental Health Screening Unit (“MHSU”) at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (“MRRC”) at Silverwater, the Long Bay Hospital and, more recently, at Parklea Correctional Centre.

68. Given the significance of mental health issues to the present sentencing decision, and the absence of any psychiatric diagnosis or treatment of the Offender before August 2019, it is appropriate to refer in some detail to the medical evidence and diagnoses concerning the Offender.

Evidence of Dr Stephen Allnutt

69. Dr Allnutt examined the Offender on 20 September 2019, 25 November 2019 and 7 December 2020.

70. In his report of 31 July 2020, Dr Allnutt concluded that the Offender was experiencing an evolving psychotic illness, with the exact diagnosis being somewhat unclear. He recommended that the Offender be further evaluated in a therapeutic setting and raised concerns as to whether he was being actively reviewed.

71. Dr Allnutt conducted a mental status examination, describing the Offender as using “fairly unusual language” in describing himself and talking about the “fixes and errors” he had. He had difficulty articulating his “internal subjective and psychological state”. His affect was constricted to “flat”. The Offender displayed several depressive and anxiety symptoms, but there was no mania or hypomania and no suicidal or aggressive ideation, plan or intent present. At the time he was examined, the Offender did not manifest any overt symptoms of psychosis, but did present with “odd and idiosyncratic ideas about others not assisting him or pointing out his ‘errors’”. The Offender’s capacity for insight and his judgment were both described by Dr Allnutt as “limited”.

72. Dr Allnutt recommended that MRI scanning and/or PET scans be conducted, as this would assist in clarifying a diagnosis of the Offender’s mental condition.

73. On the nature of the Offender’s psychiatric illness, Dr Allnutt concluded that he manifested symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of a “resolving depressive disorder, probably secondary to antidepressant medication”.

74. Dr Allnutt considered that the Offender had experienced developmental difficulty through early childhood, which could be consistent with an “autistic spectrum disorder or a cluster A personality disorder (schizotypal personality disorder with a differential diagnosis of schizoid personality disorder)”.

75. Dr Allnutt was unable to elicit clear symptoms to confirm a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but maintained a differential diagnosis of schizophrenic disorder. There was no evidence of disorganised speech, although there was significant evidence of negative symptoms found in people with schizophrenia, such as amotivation, “a-sociality”, apathy and affective blunting. Dr Allnutt was concerned with the “atypical” nature of the Offender’s presentation, which appeared to be more consistent with “cognitive difficulties” than psychotic symptoms. He cited Dr Pulman, who concluded that the Offender had a “grossly abnormal cognitive profile”.

76. Dr Allnutt concluded that further differential diagnoses included neurocognitive disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, schizotypal/atypical schizophrenic disorder, with a background of major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder currently in remission due to his incarceration.

77. Dr Allnutt considered that the defence of mental illness would be open to the Offender and observed, as well, that the Offender’s mental condition was also relevant on sentence.

78. In his report of 13 December 2020, Dr Allnutt noted that the diagnosis concerning the Offender remained unclear, although he was “increasingly concerned” that the Offender “has an underlying and emerging chronic psychotic disorder such as a schizophrenic condition” and that this needed to be investigated. Dr Allnutt pointed to factors which bore upon an assessment of risk and noted that there were “a number of perpetuating factors and ambiguous factors that require further assessment” preferably in a therapeutic environment such as Long Bay Hospital.

79. In oral evidence, Dr Allnutt was asked whether removing the “trigger” of the Offender’s parents would impact upon the probability of a similar event occurring in the future. Dr Allnutt stated that he could not express an opinion without an accurate diagnosis; the key factor was determining the “underlying pathological process” that led to the Offender’s perception of his parents at the time of the offence (T39). This issue remained unresolved.

80. Dr Allnutt considered that the best assessment of the Offender would be undertaken in a therapeutic environment and not a purely correctional environment. He recommended Long Bay Hospital as an appropriate location for the Offender so as to allow daily observation and regular meetings with a psychiatrist, with the aim of increasing the chance of clarifying the diagnosis. Dr Allnutt expressed a “real concern” that a diagnosis would not be clarified in a prison environment without access to daily observations by therapeutic staff (T46).

81. Dr Allnutt observed that the Offender had not been assessed as a “forensic patient” and hence would not be qualified for admission to the Forensic Hospital (T59-60).

Evidence of Dr Susan Pulman

82. Dr Pulman assessed the Offender on three occasions - 15 May 2020, 29 May 2020 and 24 June 2020 and provided a report dated 17 July 2020. On each occasion, the Offender presented as polite and co-operative, and was softly spoken, with prolonged silences before responses to questions. It was noted that the Offender’s processing speed was abnormal and his ability to identify feelings and emotions was impaired. The Offender had difficulty identifying positive experiences during his childhood and presented with a severe disturbance of mood (page 2).

83. A severe mood disorder was established by Dr Pulman. Upon assessing the Offender’s family relationships, Dr Pulman observed that his presentation suggested a possible history of developmental trauma as a contributory factor to his severe mood disorder. His descriptions of family life suggested a child with “disorganised attachment, insecurity, feelings of worthlessness and a poorly defined sense of self”.

84. Neuropsychological assessment was conducted for current intellectual functioning, attention and concentration/processing speed, new learning and recent memory functioning, frontal and executive/adaptive functioning, psychological status and motivation and effort. His neuropsychological profile was considered “grossly abnormal”, which was, at least, to some extent the consequence of perceived emotional neglect and/or emotional abuse at critical stages in brain development (page 20).

85. I should note here that there was no objective evidence that the Offender’s parents had actually abused or neglected him in his childhood. In fact, the objective evidence is to the contrary. Dr Pulman’s evidence on this topic was based upon the Offender’s perception of events which I accept was distorted and deluded in significant respects.

86. The Offender’s level of verbal and non-verbal intellectual abilities were observed to fall within the Superior to Very Superior range and were at the 98^th percentile, commensurate with his level of higher education in civil engineering. Such results were typically associated with children categorised as “gifted”. However, the Offender displayed reduced information processing speed and working memory relative to his Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning Indices. Further, the Offender’s performance on measures of executive functioning was “variable”, with his verbal and non-verbal reasoning skills falling within the Superior to Very Superior range, but a number of tasks testing mental flexibility, planning and organisation abilities and verbal fluency indicated relative impairment.

87. Dr Pulman stated that individuals with a history of depression and alcohol abuse were known to show deficits in working memory and processing speeds, relative to their verbal and non-verbal reasoning abilities. However, the extent of the Offender’s reduced attention, information processing speed and executive deficits relative to other aspects of his intellectual functioning were “more consistent with a severe traumatic brain injury despite no history of such accidents or direct insult to the brain” (pages 17-20).

88. Dr Pulman observed that there were no structural abnormalities on the CT/MRI scans which were suggestive of a traumatic brain injury, but also acknowledged that neuroimaging did not display abnormalities at the microlevel. The MRI scan suggested some mild atrophy in the posterior fossa which could suggest a rare form of Alzheimer’s disease, although the Offender did not exhibit the cognitive profile of a degenerative condition. Dr Pulman recommended a further PET scan or MRI to further elucidate the functioning of his brain.

89. Dr Pulman concluded that the Offender presented with “severe disturbance of mood and cognitive deficits, including higher order reasoning impairments” which constituted an abnormality of mind so severe that he lost control of his actions when committing the offences.

90. Dr Pulman indicated that the Offender would require psychiatric and psychological support for an extended period to “address his severe disturbance of mood, perceived sense of emotional maltreatment in his relationship with his parents” and to develop a more positive concept of self.

91. In oral evidence, Dr Pulman concurred with Dr Martin’s comments and specifically the need for the Offender to have some “intensive treatment observation over a period of time”. Dr Pulman expressed the view that such issues would preferably be dealt with at the Forensic Hospital “for consistency of treatment, given the unusual circumstances and history” of the Offender (T16-17).

Evidence of Dr Adam Martin

92. Dr Martin provided three reports dated 8 June 2020, 17 August 2020 and 10 February 2021.

93. Dr Martin first examined the Offender on 11 May 2020. The Offender was co-operative and calm. There was no evidence of gross psychomotor slowing or agitation. His affect was preoccupied and restricted. He was not perplexed, but no acute cognitive deficits were noted. The Offender was orientated and able to concentrate on the process of the interview. He showed reasonable historical memory and his language skills were consistent with above-average intelligence.

94. Dr Martin concluded that the Offender had a “major depressive disorder”, with a personal history suggestive of “avoidant personality disorder” and “alcohol use disorder”, which had been in remission in the lead up to the offences. Dr Martin considered that the Offender’s ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behaviour was significantly detrimentally affected by his major depressive disorder.

95. As to future treatment, Dr Martin concluded that the Offender required “assertive psychiatric assessment, monitoring and treatment, with a combination of anti-depressant medication and psychological counselling and restrictions around future risk to himself and others”.

96. The issue of substantial impairment was addressed in Dr Martin’s second report of 17 August 2020. The Offender’s capacity to judge his actions as right or wrong were, in Dr Martin’s opinion, substantially impaired by his abnormality of mind. The offending occurred in “direct nexus” to severely distorted cognitions as part of a pervasive and severe depressive condition, creating a “warped, nihilistic view of himself and the world, anger and suicidal ideation”.

97. Dr Martin’s third report of 10 February 2021 addressed the question whether the Offender was experiencing an evolving psychotic illness. He concluded that there was a need for the Offender to be “more assertively assessed and managed, for clarification of diagnosis” and “examined for his forensic psychiatric needs”.

98. Dr Martin emphasised that there had been “severe violence occurring in association with a severe mental disorder” as well as a history of substance use disorder, even if this was currently in remission in a controlled custodial environment.

99. This raised significant issues around risk for the future and posed a “reasonably high risk of self-harm and future violence in the absence of a more thorough risk assessment and management plan”. Dr Martin was not confident that, in a less secure environment, the Offender would not be a significant risk to himself and others.

100. In oral evidence, Dr Martin stated that he was under the impression that the Offender currently had “very minimal input from custodial based mental illness professionals” (T14-15). He emphasised the importance of “clear diagnosis” and a period of observation in an appropriate setting with experienced professionals (T18), and reiterated that “a more assertive environment which can aid diagnostic clarification, provide more monitoring … really needs to occur both for his risk and risk to others and to make sure that he’s … receiving appropriate treatment” (T15).

101. Dr Martin also addressed the underlying features of mental impairment, as distinct from the Offender’s severe depression, stating that it was important in assessing risk to note that there were “ongoing character tendencies” which were concerning and which would shape the Offender’s management needs for the future (T29).

Report of Dr Olav Nielssen

102. Dr Nielssen examined the Offender on 11 February 2020 and 14 April 2020 and provided a report dated 14 April 2020. Dr Nielssen provided a diagnosis of depressive illness, avoidant personality disorder, and alcohol use disorder (in remission).

103. He observed that the Offender had flat emotional responses and nihilistic thinking consistent with a severe form of depression.

104. Dr Nielssen recounted the Offender’s history of pervasive avoidance of social contact, lack of intimate relationships, being sensitive to criticism and a pattern of avoiding new activities or seeking change, despite dissatisfaction with his situation. These were indicative, in Dr Nielssen’s opinion, of an avoidant personality disorder. Dr Nielssen considered autism spectrum disorder, but noted that the Offender was comfortable in the company of immediate family members. Social phobia was also considered, but the Offender did not describe prominent anxiety symptoms in social settings.

105. Dr Nielssen diagnosed alcohol use disorder in remission. On his own account, the Offender had experienced a “pattern of longstanding hazardous alcohol intake, complicated by episodes of amnesia for events whilst intoxicated and at least one alcohol withdrawal seizure”.

106. Dr Nielssen observed that the Offender had made a “partial recovery” from his depression, as a result of the abrupt change in his environment by entering custody, his increased contact with other people, improvement in his physical health and a comparatively low dose of a low potency antidepressant medication. However, Dr Nielssen considered that the Offender would require long-term psychological and medical treatment in order to make a more complete recovery.

Justice Health Records Concerning the Offender

107. Given observations made by the expert witnesses concerning the Offender’s treatment in custody, it is appropriate to refer to evidence of assessment and treatment of the Offender by Justice Health whilst in custody (Exhibits B and C).

108. The Offender was detained at the MRRC from 13 August 2019 to 25 September 2019, before his transfer to the Long Bay Hospital where he remained until 2 October 2019. He was then transferred back to the MRRC where he remained until 16 April 2020 when he was transferred to Parklea Correctional Centre. He remained there until his transfer on 18 August 2020 to the Metropolitan Special Programs Centre located in the Long Bay Correctional Complex, before he was transferred back to Parklea Correctional Centre where he is currently housed.

109. The Offender was first reviewed for diagnostic purposes on 14 August 2019. A mental status examination indicated the Offender was “thought disordered”, failed to answer questions directly, was hard to follow at times and often vague. He also presented with “persecutory ideas re: officers in hospital, medical treatment in hospital”. He was noted to have no perceptual disturbances and elicited “partial insight”. As well as presenting as being thought disordered and depressed, the features of the Offender’s developmental history were noted as being “possibly consistent with ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder] or potential cluster A personality features”.

110. Upon further review on 20 August 2019 by psychiatrist, Dr Trevor Ma and two psychiatry registrars, the Offender’s mood was described as “[p]redominantly dysphoric” and his insight as “poor”. The treating team considered him to have psychosis, which might be assisted by a low dose of Olanzapine (an antipsychotic drug). The Offender commenced to take Olanzapine 5 mg at night. Dr Ma noted that, during the mental status examination, the Offender was “[a]ppropriately reactive” and maintained a “coherent, not always linear thought process”. The Offender also displayed ongoing paranoid thoughts and felt “possibly persecuted against”. Such thoughts were recurrent during the Offender’s period of observation by treating psychiatrists.

111. Dr Ma made a provisional diagnosis of “MDD [Major Depressive Disorder]” with a differential diagnosis of “Psychosis; ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder]”. Whilst Dr Ma’s impression was that the Offender was “[b]ehaviourally settled”, he was also still “perplexed to some degree”, with “[p]sychomotor retardation” and “[o]vervalued ideas persisting”. The administration of Olanzapine was continued, with Mirtazapine (an antidepressant drug) to be considered. Mirtazapine was approved on 13 September 2019, and administered for the first time on 16 September 2019.

112. On 16 September 2019, the Offender was reviewed by forensic psychiatrist, Dr Sarah-Jane Spencer, and a plan was established to “explore further background information” including whether appropriate diagnoses would include autistic spectrum disorder and schizoid personality order. A number of psychiatric tests were administered.

113. By 23 September 2019, the Offender presented with “improvements in his mood and functioning”, but continued to have a “pseudointellectualising approach”. No depressive symptoms were evident. The Offender was cleared from monitoring by the Risk Intervention Team, but remained in a one-in-one-out cell, as Dr Spencer was of the opinion that the Offender’s personality structure was such that “graded change” was likely to be better suited.

114. By 9 October 2019, the overall impression was that the Offender was in a stable mental state and did not face any imminent risk. The administration of Olanzapine was discontinued. On 16 October 2019, the Offender was also given clearance to be released to a normal cell placement.

115. On 29 October 2019, the Offender’s monitoring was altered from daily to weekly nursing reviews and the opinion of Corrective Services NSW (“CSNSW”) was sought regarding his protection/placement status. A placement in the Hamden Mental Health Accommodation Area (“Hamden Unit”) was considered, as the Offender was vulnerable and had a history of depression. At the time of review, the Offender was taking Mirtazapine, 15 mg nightly, and had been referred to Westmead Hospital for an MRI brain scan.

107. Dr Ma noted that there had been “nil issues reported” with the Offender sharing a cell and he was “reportedly doing well since move to pod 19”. The Offender had also been seen by a psychologist.

108. On 27 November 2019, the Offender was given clearance to be transferred to the Hamden Unit. When the Offender was reviewed by Dr Ma, the notes stated “[s]table mental state”, “[D]epression in remission” and “[I]mproved adjustment to incarceration”. Again, a “Cluster A personality [disorder]” was maintained by Dr Ma as a potential diagnosis.

109. A Discharge Management Plan was produced by the Mental Health Screening Unit on 12 December 2019. The Offender was then compliant with his prescribed treatment, had “good insight” and continued to work with the CSNSW Psychology Service. He was “willing to maintain psychology contact, interested in exploring his thoughts and feelings and open to ongoing psycho-education”.

110. The Offender’s protection status was assessed as requiring allocation to a Protection Limited Association Area due to “personal safety”. He was viewed as “[v]ulnerable due to mental health”. The management plan cleared the Offender from the MHSU to Hamden Unit Protection Pods 15/16. He was allowed normal cell placement and required a Gaol of Classification with access to Justice Health Mental Health Services. The Offender was informed of the process of self-referring to CSNSW Offender Services & Program Staff, but it was also noted that he was already regularly treated by the CSNSW Psychology Service.

111. On 17 December 2019, a CT brain scan was undertaken at Auburn Hospital. An MRI was undertaken at Westmead Hospital on 3 February 2020. The MRI report of 11 February 2020 indicated mild cerebellar/posterior fossa atrophy, as well as mild degenerative changes to the right temporomandibular joint.

112. On 27 February 2020, two months into the Offender’s admission to the Hamden Unit, a review was undertaken by Nurse Practitioner Christine Muller. Her overall impression was of a “47 year old man with likely Cluster A personality disorder and background ETOH dependence [presenting] with depressive symptoms”. The Offender’s Mirtazapine dosage was increased from 15 mg to 30 mg. A review undertaken two weeks later indicated no adverse side effects arising from the increase in Mirtazapine dosage.

113. On 19 June 2020, a PET scan was requested, to be undertaken on 1 October 2020. On 30 July 2020, in light of the neuropsychiatric testing performed by Dr Pulman indicating poor executive function, Dr Allnutt recommended functional brain imaging. Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Sarah-Jane Spencer, explained that this proved difficult to organise under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

114. On 27 August 2020, the Offender was reviewed by a clinical nurse specialist and remained classified as Clinical Level B (a patient assessed as having unstable or acute deterioration of their mental health status) due to his “complex mental health needs”.

115. When the Offender was reviewed on 13 October 2020 by Staff Specialist Sue Morgans, the notes of the review stated that he was “at both elevated risk to self and others, however he has been NCP [Normal Cell Placement] for an extended period of time and he has not had issues with si/hi/vi, hence continuing with this plan is appropriate”. The notes concluded “Not psychotic/melancholic/manic”.

116. Since October 2020, the Offender has not received extensive mental health review. On 18 January 2021, a PET scan was requested once more by the Offender’s solicitor. After consultation with the Nuclear Medicine Department at Prince of Wales Hospital and based on the prior MRI report, Specialist Dr Miljan Vlahovic considered that a PET scan was unnecessary. The Offender was to be referred for cognitive assessment and neurology if required.

117. The most recent mental health review, apart from Dr Martin’s report of 10 February 2021, was undertaken on 29 January 2021 by Registered Nurse Aman Dhanju. An inter-gaol transfer to Parklea Correctional Centre was recorded, as well as “nil medical concerns, nil thoughts of self-harm or harm to others voiced by patient”.

118. As to diagnosis of the Offender’s underlying conditions and characteristics, reviews by Justice Health forensic psychiatrists indicated that he likely has a Cluster A personality disorder, although further observation was recommended to confirm this diagnosis.

The Objective Gravity of the Offences and the Relevance of the Fact that the Offender’s Mental State has Already Been Taken into Account to Reduce the Offences from Murder to Manslaughter

128. It is appropriate for the Court to recognise that the Offender’s mental condition has already played a significant part in his favour, given the acceptance by the Crown of his pleas of guilty to manslaughter by way of substantial impairment in satisfaction of the indictment which charged two counts of murder.

129. It remains necessary for the Court to take into account the Offender’s mental condition on sentence, in circumstances where that condition was linked directly to the commission of the offences. However, the Court must be careful not to double count, in the Offender’s favour, his mental condition in a way which does not properly reflect the fact that the mental condition was also critical to the reduction of his offences from murder to manslaughter: R v Tarrant [2018] NSWSC 774 at [163]-[171]; R v Cahill (No. 4) [2018] NSWSC 1896 at [203].

130. I accept the submission made by the Crown and for the Offender that the Offender was forthcoming in what he said immediately after the offences to the “000” operator, and to attending police, concerning what he had done to his parents. In effect, the Offender killed his mother and then his father on the morning of 6 August 2019 without any triggering event or argument with them. There does not appear to have been any real planning by the Offender to commit these offences, although it is clear from his writings that he had been dwelling upon his distorted and bleak perception of his relationship with his parents.

131. I accept the submission of the Crown and the Offender that it is likely that his impairment was gross so that the substantial impairment in this case was at the higher end of the spectrum of impairment. The Offender was significantly impaired at the time of the offences by severe depression and avoidant personality disorder.

132. I am satisfied that the Offender’s mental illness played a causative role in the commission of the offences. There is no other explanation for his violent behaviour, directed to his parents, apart from the existence of highly distorted thought processes associated with mental illness.

133. In reality, the Offender’s parents had cared for him and provided accommodation for him throughout his entire life. There is no rational or objective basis on the evidence for the Offender to have any grievance towards his parents. The bleak perception reflected in his thought processes was the product of distorted thinking associated with his mental illness.

134. The Offender used a weapon to kill each of his parents. He attacked his mother as she ate breakfast at the kitchen table in circumstances which must have been terrifying once she detected his presence and intent.

135. Thereafter, the Offender entered his father’s bedroom. The Offender woke his father and a relatively brief struggle took place, in the course of which self-defence wounds were inflicted to the father as he attempted to fend off what must have been, for the father, a terrifying attack by the Offender. The Offender overpowered his father and inflicted the fatal knife wounds.

136. Despite the content of the Offender’s writings on the social media platform, there is no evidence that he had communicated any of these destructive and self-destructive thoughts to his parents. On the face of it, the Offender’s attack against his parents on this morning came out of the blue, although in circumstances where his parents would have had a general understanding of the Offender’s difficulties as they manifested themselves at that time.

137. I accept the joint submission of the parties that there was no capacity for rational or practical organisation of a plan to kill in this case, with the Offender seeing his acts as being part of a process which would lead to his own death by suicide. The Offender’s bizarre thought processes are reflected in his writings on the social media platform.

138. It has been said that a central feature of the sentencing exercise for manslaughter is to determine the culpability of an offender and place it within the spectrum covered by the offence of manslaughter: Tarrant v R [2018] NSWCCA 21 at [74].

139. That said, however, it is not especially meaningful, in a case such as this, to seek to make findings of the level of objective seriousness of each offence by comparison to a scale or a range for manslaughter offences: cf R v Connors [2018] NSWSC 1439 at [44].

140. All cases of homicide are very serious crimes because they involve the unlawful taking of the life of a fellow human being and it is the responsibility of the courts to protect and preserve human life and to punish those who unlawfully take it: R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363 at [31]. In this case, the Offender launched a brutal knife attack upon his mother whilst she sat at the kitchen table in her own home having breakfast. The Offender then moved to his father’s bedroom where he made a further knife attack killing his father.

141. These were terrible crimes committed in tragic circumstances which ended the lives of the Offender’s parents. They can only be regarded as very serious offences. However, a complete understanding and assessment of the offences requires the Court to have regard to the mental state of the Offender and the role of his mental illness in these tragic events which, it must be said, would not have occurred if the Offender was mentally well.

The Offender’s Mental Condition, General and Specific Deterrence and Protection of the Community

142. Certain aspects which would otherwise have a major role to play on sentence have lesser significance in sentencing the Offender because of his mental condition at the time of the offences and at the present time. It is clear that the Offender’s mental condition was causally related to his offending so that a lesser level of moral culpability should attach to the Offender. The need for the sentence to reflect elements of denunciation, retribution and general deterrence is reduced very substantially because of the Offender’s mental condition: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177]. Less weight should also be attached to personal deterrence because of the Offender’s mental condition.

143. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the question whether the Offender’s mental condition means that he presents more of a danger to the community, a factor which should be taken into account on sentence: s.3A(c) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa at [177].

144. It was submitted for the Offender that the circumstances of these offences were unique so that there is no real risk of reoffending by the Offender. I am not at all sure that this aspect is that clear. There are unresolved questions concerning the Offender’s mental condition and the accurate diagnosis of his mental disorders. The psychiatrists who gave evidence each observed that a guarded or cautious approach was required concerning the Offender’s prognosis. It cannot be said that there is no risk of reoffending of this type if the Offender, at some time in the future, finds himself in a domestic or residential setting where distorted thinking and paranoid ideation come into play once again.

145. It is not possible to conclude at the present time that the Offender poses no risk of reoffending by use of violence towards persons in the community in the future.

146. For the purpose of passing sentence, a task for the Court is assessment of the risk of reoffending (as opposed to the likelihood or certainty of reoffending): Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194 at [53]. This aspect is intertwined with protection of the community, an important aspect to be considered where (as here) the offences for which the person is to be sentenced were associated with the person’s mental illness: R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 at [43]-[54].

147. What can be said is that the Offender did not manifest any violent behaviour towards others until these tragic events occurred in August 2019 when he was almost 47 years of age. Further, when the Offender comes to be released into the community, it may be expected that his conditional liberty will be accompanied by a regime of mental health treatment which may be continued even after the completion of his sentence under available protective regimes including the Mental Health Act 2007.

148. The fact that the Offender’s mental health issues will be known to correctional and health authorities will be important for protective purposes in the future. The position will be markedly different to that which applied on 6 August 2019, when the Offender’s mental health issues had not been the subject of any significant treatment.

Remorse

149. It was submitted for the Offender that the Court should find that he is remorseful for his offences. The Offender has not given evidence in the sentencing proceedings and an assessment of his remorse must be made by reference to other features of the evidence including any statements made by him to others since the commission of the offences.

150. A complicating aspect in this respect is the Offender’s mental condition. He has been receiving treatment whilst in custody, including medication, but it is not clear that the Offender possesses any significant insight into his offences, let alone that he is remorseful for his actions.

151. The psychiatric and psychological reports reflect minimal expressions of insight on the Offender’s part along the lines of his parents having “a chance to live that I took away from them” (report of Dr Allnutt of 13 December 2020, page 2).

152. The Court must be cautious in this area because an assessment of the Offender’s remorse is tied up inextricably with an understanding of his mental condition and thought processes which manifested themselves, at the time of the offences, in deep-seated distorted thinking concerning his parents which was not supported by any objective evidence.

Prior Good Character

153. I take into account the Offender’s prior good character in passing sentence for these offences. Apart from the absence of prior convictions and any history of violence, the Offender was engaged generally in productive employment for many years before his condition deteriorated in recent years.

The Offender’s Pleas of Guilty

154. The Offender was committed for trial from the Central Local Court on 7 July 2020 upon two counts of murder. When the matters first came before the Supreme Court on 7 August 2020, the proceedings were adjourned upon a joint application by the Crown and the defence to allow the Crown to consider further defence psychiatric material that had been served on 5 August 2020.

155. On 4 September 2020, the Offender was arraigned before R A Hulme J upon two counts of murder to which he pleaded not guilty, but guilty to manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment with those pleas being accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment.

156. It was the common position of the Crown and senior counsel for the Offender at the sentencing hearing (T64-65) that the Offender was entitled to a discount of 10% on each count by reason of his plea of guilty: s.25D(2)(b)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

157. I accept the joint submission of the parties and will apply a 10% discount on sentence for each offence arising from the Offender’s plea of guilty.

Victim Impact Statements

158. Milly Reid, the wife of Andrew Reid, made a victim impact statement to the Court and a victim impact statement was read as well on behalf of Andrew Reid.

159. The devastating consequences of the offences upon the Reid family were made clear in the victim impact statements. Andrew and Milly Reid have lost parents and their children have lost their grandparents. Andrew Reid explained that, in a sense, he has lost his brother as well.

160. The loss of their grandparents has taken a particularly heavy toll upon the children of Andrew and Milly Reid. It is apparent that there was a loving relationship between the children and their grandparents and that has been lost as a result of these terrible events.

161. The sense of loss has been compounded by the passing of Milly Reid’s mother (through dementia) within six months of the deaths of Diana and Graham Reid.

162. The destructive effect of events such as this are magnified when the Offender is a member of the family, so that the inexplicable nature of what has happened is confounding for the grandchildren and for Andrew and Milly Reid, who are left to grapple with the loss of a generation of the family.

163. Both Andrew and Milly Reid have demonstrated a thoughtful approach towards the Offender who remains, of course, a member of the family.

164. These events constitute a very great human tragedy for the Reid family and the wider community who knew and respected Diana and Graham Reid.

165. On behalf of the Court and the community, I express condolences to Andrew and Milly Reid and their children for the great loss which they have suffered arising from these tragic events.

Concurrency, Accumulation and Totality

166. The Offender is to be sentenced for two offences of manslaughter. A separate sentence must be set for each offence with the Court to have regard to the principles of concurrency, accumulation and totality in fixing the final effective sentence.

167. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed by way of aggregate sentence in this case with the need to nominate an indicative sentence for each offence and with the aggregate sentence manifesting notional accumulation so that the aggregate sentence itself reflects the total criminality involved in the offences.

168. In circumstances where there are two victims of separate manslaughter offences, the aggregate sentence must reflect that fact that two persons have lost their lives as a result of their unlawful killing by the Offender: R v Gommeson (2014) 243 A Crim R 534; [2014] NSWCCA 159 at [105]-[106].

169. It is necessary to keep in mind that these were two separate attacks upon different persons, albeit committed close in time, and with the Offender being subject to the same distorted thought processes in each case which gave rise to substantial impairment by abnormality of mind.

The Placement of the Offender During his Sentence

170. As noted earlier in these remarks, in the course of oral evidence at the sentencing hearing, a question was raised by Dr Martin and Dr Pulman as to whether the Offender would be more appropriately detained at the Forensic Hospital at Malabar given his mental condition. Dr Allnutt suggested that the Offender may be housed appropriately at the Long Bay Hospital to permit a thorough assessment and ongoing treatment.

171. The task for the Court is to sentence the Offender for his crimes of manslaughter. The placement of the Offender is a matter for correctional authorities and Justice Health insofar as he is in need of ongoing psychiatric treatment.

172. At one level, the Offender has been coping quite well within the structured and ordered setting of a correctional centre, which itself appears to mitigate the pressure and anxiety from which he was suffering when living in the community. There was evidence from Alexander Platt that the Offender is playing chess regularly with other inmates, with this being a helpful step by engaging the Offender in a constructive activity in a type of social setting where he communicates with other persons, a situation removed from his previous isolated “loner” existence.

170. The question whether the Offender may, at some time, satisfy the requirements for assessment as a “correctional patient” under s.73 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 will be for the relevant authorities to consider. It is not for the Court, in passing sentence, to express a view on that issue.

171. Likewise, the question of placement of the Offender in the Long Bay Hospital or in another treatment environment within the correctional system is not a matter for the Court.

172. What is clear, however, from the evidence is that ongoing assessment and treatment of the Offender is important and should be undertaken. These steps are in the public interest and will operate to protect the community as well as assisting the Offender.

173. To this end, it is appropriate that copies of the reports of Dr Allnutt, Dr Martin, Dr Nielssen and Dr Pulman be provided to Justice Health, together with a copy of these sentencing remarks, to assist in the care, treatment, management and placement of the Offender during his sentence.

Special Circumstances

177. I accept the submission made for the Crown and by senior counsel for the Offender that a finding of special circumstances is appropriate in this case.

178. It will be in the interests of the community, as well as the Offender, that he be eligible for release by way of conditional liberty for an extended period, during which appropriate treatment and support will be available to him in the community to assist his readjustment to life in the community.

179. At the same time, it is necessary for the Court to fix a minimum period which the Offender should spend in custody to reflect the total criminality involved in his offences having regard to all the principles of sentencing in this case: R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 535 at [63]-[65].

Determining an Appropriate Aggregate Sentence

180. Having regard to all factors relevant to imposition of sentence in this case, and after applying a 10% discount for the Offender’s plea of guilty (with some rounding), I nominate the following indicative sentences:

1. for the manslaughter of Diana Reid – imprisonment for seven years;

2. for the manslaughter of Graham Reid – imprisonment for seven years.

181. Having found special circumstances, I am satisfied that an aggregate sentence should be passed for the offences comprising a non-parole period of five years and six months with a balance of term of five years.

182. The aggregate sentence will date from 6 August 2019, the date of the Offender’s arrest.

183. David Reid, would you please stand.

184. You are convicted of the offences of manslaughter of Diana Reid and Victor Graham Reid committed at Sutherland on 6 August 2019.

185. For those offences, you are sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years and six months, comprising a non-parole period of five years and six months commencing on 6 August 2019 and expiring on 5 February 2025 with a balance of term of five years commencing on 6 February 2025 and expiring on 5 February 2030.

186. The first day upon which you will be eligible for release on parole is 6 February 2025.

187. I request the Registrar to forward to Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network a copy of each of the reports of Dr Stephen Allnutt, Dr Adam Martin, Dr Olav Nielssen and Dr Susan Pulman to which reference has been made in these sentencing remarks, together with a copy of these remarks.

**********

Decision last updated: 07 May 2021