R v Reis - [2005] NSWSC 707

CITATION:
REGINA v Marlene Xenia REIS [2005] NSWSC 707

HEARING DATE(S): 20.6.05, 21.6.05

JUDGMENT DATE :

15 July 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF:
Mathews AJ

DECISION:
Not guilty on the ground of mental illness.; Special orders made under s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

LEGISLATION CITED:
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure Act 1990
Mental Health Act 1990

PARTIES:
REGINA - Crown
REIS, Marlene Xenia REIS - Accused

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 7000/03

COUNSEL:
Crown: Mr P Barrett
Accused: Mr P Boulten SC

SOLICITORS:
Crown - S C Kavanagh
Ford Criminal Lawyers

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

MATHEWS AJ

15 July 2005

70003/03
REGINA v Marlene Xenia REIS

REASONS FOR VERDICT

Introduction

1 This is a special hearing pursuant to section 18 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (“the Act”). The accused has been charged with murder following the stabbing death of her husband on 4 September 2002.

2 On 27 June 2003, the accused was found to be unfit to be tried pursuant to section 11A of the Act. On 4 February 2004, the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“The Tribunal”) determined pursuant to section 16(1) of the Act that, on the balance of probabilities, the accused would not become fit to be tried within twelve months of 27 June 2003. On 10 March 2004, the NSW Attorney General directed that a special hearing be conducted pursuant to section 18 of the Act.

3 Before the commencement of the special hearing the Crown Prosecutor tendered an election under s 21A of the Act, signed by the accused, to have the hearing conducted by judge alone. The Crown consented to this course. Before signing the election the accused received advice from her solicitor, Ms Havryliv, in the presence of her treating psychiatrist, Dr Michael Guiffrida. Dr Guiffrida was satisfied that she understood the nature of the election and what flowed from it.

4 The special hearing commenced on 20 June 2005. Although it was not necessary for the accused to be arraigned, she asked through her counsel for this to be done. She then pleaded not guilty to the charge of murdering Michael Steven Reis. The only defence raised was that of mental illness.

5 The circumstances of the offence were in no way disputed at the hearing. It was accepted that the accused was criminally responsible for the killing of her husband. However given that this is a special hearing, it remains incumbent upon me to make a finding, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused killed the deceased, intending at the time to kill him or inflict grievous bodily harm. Only then can the issue of mental illness arise.

6 I therefore turn to discuss the circumstances of the killing.

The killing

7 As at September 2002 the accused and her husband had been separated for about two years. He had remained in the family home at Lane Cove, while the accused rented an apartment…

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 Reis

Details

AGLC: R v Reis [2005] NSWSC 707
Case: [2005] NSWSC 707
Decision Date: 15 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Marlene Xenia Reis is an appeal against the decision of the lower court, which found the accused, Marlene Xenia Reis, not guilty of murder on the basis of mental illness. The appeal was heard by Mathews AJ in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue in this case was whether the trial judge correctly found the accused not guilty of murder due to mental illness. The court had to determine if the accused was suffering from a mental illness that impaired her ability to reason and understand the wrongfulness of her actions at the time of the crime.

Mathews AJ reviewed the evidence presented, including the psychiatric evaluations and the accused's background. The court concluded that the accused was indeed suffering from a severe mental illness, specifically a delusional disorder or schizophrenia, which significantly impaired her ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions. The court accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's delusions about her husband's alleged abuse of their daughter had a profound impact on her mental state at the time of the killing. The court found that the accused's mental illness met the criteria for the defence of mental illness as stipulated in the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

In light of this finding, Mathews AJ upheld the verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness and proceeded to make consequential orders for the accused's disposition and treatment. The court determined that special orders under section 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 should be made to facilitate the accused's gradual reintegration into the community, under the supervision of her treating psychiatrist and a designated case manager. The court also made additional orders to ensure the accused's compliance with treatment, her engagement in rehabilitation programs, and her attendance at Mental Health Review Tribunal reviews. These orders aimed to provide a structured and supportive environment for the accused's ongoing mental health treatment and physical rehabilitation, considering her unique circumstances, including her paraplegia resulting from a previous accident.

Orders