R v Settree (No 2) - [2016] NSWSC 1079

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Settree (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1079
Hearing dates: 27 July; 3-4 August 2016
Date of orders: 04 August 2016
Decision date: 04 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) Under s 38 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), I return a special verdict of not guilty of the charge of murder of Margaret Settree by reason of mental illness;
(2) Under s 38 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), I return a special verdict of not guilty of the charge of murder of Ian Donald Settree by reason of mental illness;
(3) Under s 39 of the Act, Scott Settree 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;
(4) I direct the Registrar to notify the Minister for Health of these orders;
(5) I direct the Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of my special verdict and of these orders. The Registrar is to provide the Tribunal with a copy of these reasons, my orders, the transcript of proceedings for 3rd August, 2016 and the reports of Drs Samuel and Nielssen.
For the firearms charge:
Convicted of possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm on 3 December 2014, contrary to the provisions of s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). Sentenced to a fixed term of full time imprisonment of 18 months duration, commencing on 3 December 2014 and expiring on 2 June 2016.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the person – murder – trial by judge alone – defence of mental illness – accused suffering from severe case of paranoid schizophrenia – accused did not understand wrongfulness of his act – finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 104, 105, 107, 132, 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 60, 184
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 7
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss38, 39, 43(a)
Cases Cited: Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 at 466;
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500;
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; 55 CLR 182;
R v Jenkins (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20;
R v McNaughton (1843) 8 ER 718;
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Scott Settree (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel: E Balodis (Crown Prosecutor)
E Wilson SC (Public Defender)
Solicitors: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/357855

judgment

The accused, Scott Settree has pleaded not guilty to both counts on the indictment that, at 8 pm on 3 December 2014 he murdered his parents, Margaret Settree and Donald Ian Settree. An election under s 132(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) was made on 26 July 2016. This election was consented to by 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 Settree (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Settree (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1079
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1079
Decision Date: 04 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Settree, the accused was on trial for the murder of his wife. The dispute centred on the defence of mental illness, specifically whether the accused, who suffered from severe paranoid schizophrenia, was capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the accused could be held criminally responsible for his actions given his mental state, and whether the correct legal test was applied to determine the accused's understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including psychiatric assessments and expert opinions. It was determined that the accused's mental illness significantly impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions or that they were wrong. The court found that the accused did not have the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions due to his severe paranoid schizophrenia. The court applied the appropriate legal test and concluded that the accused was not criminally responsible for his actions because he did not understand the wrongfulness of his act.

As a result, the court found the accused not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accurately assessing the mental state of an accused person in criminal cases involving mental illness. The final orders of the court were that the accused be detained in a secure mental health facility until such time as he is no longer a danger to himself or others.

Orders