R v Singh - [2010] NSWSC 638

No judgment structure available for this case.

CITATION: R v SINGH [2010] NSWSC 638

HEARING DATE(S): 7 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

DECISION: Verdict is not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
Mr Singh continue to be detained in the Long Bay Prison Hospital until released by due process of law.

PARTIES: Regina
Jayant Kumar SINGH

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/00002863

COUNSEL: T McCarthy (Crown)
P Boulten SC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh Director Public Prosecutions
Ford Criminal Lawyers

- 8 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No: 2008/00002863
RS HULME J
Tuesday 29 June 2010

REGINA v Jayant Kumar SINGH

JUDGMENT

1 RS HULME J: On 22 December 2006 the above named accused killed a 10 month old child Camira Vuniwa who, with two siblings Kelera aged 4 and Imanual aged 2 had been left in his care.

2 When police arrived the accused was still in the premises, emerging when police called upon him to do so. He was immediately handcuffed and placed on the ground and a short time later when asked, “What did you do” he replied “I stabbed the baby”. Asked “Why did you do it?“ and “What happened?” he replied, “I am depressed. I just got out of Rozelle on Wednesday” and “The kids were playing. I was depressed so I stabbed the baby”.

3 Later that day he participated in an ERISP in the course of which the following questions and answers appear:-

Q. Now, as, as I mentioned to you, Detective Condon and I are making inquiries into the murder of Camari Vuniwa at 33 Unara Street, Campsie earlier this morning. What can you tell me about that?
A. When the, the mother went to the, do the shopping, after a little while, I got a stick and hit the baby, then I used the knife and the chopper to cut the neck off.
…

Q. Can you, can you tell me what, what caused you to do those things that you’ve just told me?
A. Because I’m, I don’t feeling too well and I, I wanted to go into custody.
…

A. … the mother was going to the shopping centre, Campsie, the, I can’t remember, to sort out some things there at the shopping centre and after a while there was the walking stick and I closed the door, the back door and then I used the walking stick to hit the baby. …. But not for any particular, particular reason, … hadn’t done anything.
Q. I’m sorry I don’t ---
A. It’s not that the baby done anything to offend.
Q. The baby hadn’t done anything to offend you?
A. No.
Q. OK What happened then?
A. Then with, with the stick I tried to choke her, then I used the knife and the chopper and when the kids’ mother came, she knocked on the door, knocked on the door, she yelled and then she broke the glass to open the door, but it was too late by then.
…

Q. … So you said, so, about half an hour after the children’s mother had gone, you closed the back door, did you way?
A. Yeah.
…
Q Why did you do that?
A. So that was not disturbing the process.
Q. Had you planned to do what you did for some time?
A. This morning it just came in my mind.
…

A. No, she (the baby) was not in a bed or a cot, but she, she, she stands up and walks around.
Q. OK All right. So, also at home were the baby’s brother and sister, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they doing at this time?
A. They were just, at the time, they were just started to cry. They were near the baby… and they started to cry.
Q. Why did they start to cry?
A. Started to cry because the baby was getting hit.
Q. I see. What, what stick were you using to hit the baby?
A. It was a walking stick.
…

Q. How many times did you hit her?
A I don’t remember.
Q What happened then?
A Then I used the knife on the neck, the knife, and later I used the chopper.
….

A The knife was in the kitchen.
Q OK So, you went and got that knife and you cut the baby’s neck with that knife, did you say?
A Yeah, I tried to cut, but the knife was not sharp.
Q All right. What happened then?
A Then I got the chopper and the chopper was, chopper was more sharp.
…

Q. When you decided to hit the baby with the stick and then, and then use the knives, what were you intending to do, what did you want to do to the baby?
A. Well, I think I was, I intended to kill the baby.
Q. What was in your mind at the time, do you remember what you were thinking at the time?
A. Thinking was basically thinking that the mother might kill me.
Q. You were thinking the mother might kill you because of what you did to the baby?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that something that you wanted to happen?
A. I don’t, I don’t think I would have minded that to happen and secondly to get in custody.
Q. Why did you want to get into custody?
A. So that I don’t have to worry about other things.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Like it varies… with other things.
…

Q OK You also just touched on describing to us that you may have choked the baby, is that, is that correct?
A. (No audible reply).
Q. And how did you do that?
A. I just used the hands and the pillow.
Q. And a pillow?
A. Mn
Q. Where did the pillow come from?
A. The pillow was just there.
Q. And what did you do with the pillow?
A. With the pillow? Just try to stop the breathing.
Q. Is this before hitting, or after hitting?
A. After hitting.
Q. Was this before using a knife ---
A. No.
Q. --- or after the knife?
A. Before.
…

Q. When you were hitting the baby with the stick, are you able to express what, what level of force you used?
A. It was quite hard.
…

…

Q. … Just quickly, after the mother had come home, what were your thoughts at that, at that point in time?
A. When the mother had come home, I thought she was going to use the chopper to chop my neck off.
Q. And beyond that, what, what were you thinking after that?
A. Beyond that, I had a feeling that I’d be taken into custody.
Q. And how did that make you feel?
A. I thought that I won’t have to worry about other things for the time being.
…

4 The post mortem report recorded that the victim had sustained blunt force injuries to the head, with bruising and grazing to the skin, extensive fracturing of the skull and injury to the brain. The neck had also been deeply severed with near decapitation. Discrete bruises were also noted within the soft tissues of the neck in keeping with pressure having been applied in that area. Petechial haemorrhages were seen in the lining of the left eye, providing supportive evidence for a degree of asphyxia.

5 The Accused’s relationship with the family of the victim commenced about April 2005 when a family friend of the victim’s mother, one Solomoni Vuki, moved in with them. The Applicant was a friend of Mr Vuki and he moved in also. Over the ensuing 12 months or so the Accused and the victim’s family became close. He ate and watched television with them, played with the two elder children and they became attached to him. Mrs Vuniwa described the Accused as “very good with the kids”, and said that she never saw the Accused become angry or aggressive with any of the children. From time to time he was left to look after the elder children while Mrs Vuniwa went out and in late June 2005 the Accused looked after the house while the other occupants went to Fiji.

6 The victim was born on 11 February 2006 and she and the Accused had also established a good relationship. She enjoyed playing with the Accused.

7 In June or July 2006, the Accused appeared to become ill. He was diagnosed with blood sugar problems and high blood pressure and admitted to Canterbury Hospital. There some mental problems manifested themselves and he was transferred to Rozelle Mental Hospital. At some stage he seems to have been transferred back to Canterbury for a short time due to physical ailments but he was finally released from Rozelle on 12 December 2006. (There is some evidence that the release occurred on 19 December 2006 but the difference is not material and I shall use the 12 December date.)

8 When he was at Canterbury Hospital Mrs Vuniwa and the children would visit him 2-3 times a week, sometimes at the insistence of the children. Mrs Vuniwa noticed a change in the Accused but his relationship with the children remained happy. After he was transferred to Rozelle these visits reduced to at least once a week. On these occasions the Accused often carried Camari and to Mrs Vuniwa’s observation seeing the children made the Accused happy.

9 On one visit she or Mr Vuki asked the Accused if they could speak to one of his doctors but the Accused responded “no, everything is OK”. Mrs Vuniwa derived the impression that the Accused didn’t want others to know what was wrong with him and the topic was not pursued.

10 On 12 December 2006 the Accused returned to Mrs Vuniwa’s premises to live. She observed he was not the same person as before, always looking sleepy and not talkative. Mr Vuki also referred to the Accused having changed. However the Accused still appeared attached to the children and never showed any signs of being angry or upset with them. From time to time the Accused would pick up Camari with the result that she would stop crying.

11 As has been said, on the day of Camari’s death Mrs Vuniwa had gone to the shop. On returning and noticing that the back door was closed she called to Kelera to open it. Kalera’s response did not sound normal and Mrs Vuniwa broke the glass on a window near the door, reached in and opened it. Seeing the aftermath of the Accused’s activities, she picked up Camari from the floor and ran outside with the other two children.

12 The Accused waived his right to a committal hearing and on 7 February 2008 was committed for trial. The matter was first listed in this Court on 4 April 2008.

13 Concerns having existed in respect of the Accused’s mental health, on 12 December 2008, Mathews AJ held an inquiry under Part 2 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (now the Mental Health (Forensic Provision) Act 1990) and concluded that the Accused was unfit to be tried.

14 Subsequent to her Honour’s finding, the Mental Health Review Tribunal has made a number of findings including, on 22 January and 9 July 2009, that the Accused would not become fit to be tried during a period of 12 months after the finding. Pursuant to Sections 19 et seq. of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act a special hearing was on 9 December last held before me.

15 Evidence as to the Accused’s killing of Camari was provided by the tender, without objection, of a bundle of documents. In practical terms the only issues which required a decision was whether I should find:-

(i) That on the limited evidence available, the Accused committed the offence charged;

(ii) That the Accused was not guilty on the ground of mental illness; or

Crimes Act

16 Counsel for the Accused, Mr Bolton SC contended for the second of these possibilities and the Crown did not seek to argue to the contrary. However, the decision is one for me and to the principal evidence bearing on the topic I now turn.

17 The terms of s23A may be put aside for the moment. I instruct myself that the onus of proving that an Accused person is not guilty on the grounds of mental illness lies on him, that the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, and that the test in the circumstances of this case is whether the Accused, as a result of a defect of reason from disease of the mind, did not appreciate the nature and quality of his acts causing death or did not know that they were wrong. He would not know, in the sense of appreciating or understanding, that his acts were wrong, if through a disease, disorder or disturbance of his mind, he could not think rationally of the reasons which to ordinary people would make that act right or wrong or could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense or composure – R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 at 189-190.

18 The principal evidence on this topic was contained in:-

(i) A report of Dr Pauline Langeluddecke, a clinical psychologist, dated 20 August 2007.

(ii) Two reports of Dr Stephen Allnutt, a psychiatrist, dated 6 February and 5 September 2008.

(iii) Two reports of Dr Yvonne Skinner, a psychiatrist, dated 23 July and 4 December 2008. Dr Skinner was engaged by the Crown.

19 Also relevant are the terms of two letters written by the Accused. The first, dated 28 September 2008 was written to the Accused’s then legal representative. It was in terms:-

“Dear Sir

I hope you have received my last letter. My doctor told me on Friday 26/9/08 that the doctor sent to examine me last, Dr Walnut (sic) had told him that he felt I was unfit to plea for my trial on 3/10/08. Points of concern.

1. When I was released from Rozelle hospital on 19-12-2006 I was properly examined by Doctor Joshua who had found me fit to go home.

2. My crime was premeditated cold blooded killing of baby Marie – defenceless, very clever (Marie told us when she was doing the toilet, she had started to dance (shake) before she had started to walk).

3. I had written to my ex-lawyer telling I was pleading guilty as I had preplanned the killing 6 months before the crime, I knew what I was doing and I don’t want to lie in the court and I did not want any appeal. She had sent Dr Walnut. She came later. She had gagged me most of the time and did not give me any time to ask any questions. She had a killer’s look on her face. Both she and Dr Walnut both had tried to put big fear in me to drive me into deep depression as if they wanted me to plead not guilty, by mental illness. To me it seemed they are sleeping with the enemy.

4. Dr Cook and his junior at Long Bay hospital found me fit and sent me to M.R.R.C.

5. Doctor White at M.R.R.C. at Silverwater did not find anything wrong with me.

6. Dr Pauline and a neurologist who had thoroughly examined me for hours found nothing wrong with me.

7. Dr Skinner from Prosecutions side found I was fit.

Please alert prosecutor and judge on 3/10/08 – Thanks.”

20 The second letter, dated 7 November 2008, was written to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Its terms were:-

“Dear Sir, a while ago our psychiatrist Doctor Walnut had seen me 3 times and prepared his report. Later I wrote to my former lawyer Victoria Harryliv that I knew what I was doing at the time of the crime (I had also preplanned it 6 months before the crime) I was not mentally ill at the time of the crime and I was going to plead guilty and I did not want any appeal. Shorty (sic) Victoria sends Dr Walnut again to drive fear into me so that I do change my plea to not guilty by mental illness. Victoria had visited me later also trying to drive fear into me. Later I wrote to ford criminal lawyers not to send Victoria to me as she was not acting in my best interests.

I was in Rozelle hospital for about 5 months. When I was discharged on 19/12/2006 Doctor Joshua, my doctor, had examined me properly and found out that I was fit to return home. Her diagnosis was correct. I was mentally allright. The reason I committed the crime had to do with Marie’s mother and it did not have anything to do with my mental condition.

After spending around 5 months at Long Bay hospital doctor Cook and his assistant (an Indian doctor with glasses had found out that there was no need for me to remain at Long Bay hospital and I was sent to Silverwater jail (M.R.R.C.) At Silverwater Victoria had me examined by a lady doctor Pauline who had taken 4 hours to examine me.

I was told by the prosecution psychiatrist that Doctor Pauline hadn’t found anything wrong with me.

Later Victoria had sent a senior neurologist to interview me. He had spent almost 2 hours with me and in the end he told me that he did not find anything wrong with me.

^st

(Addresses, phone and fax numbers and suggestions as to where Doctors Joshua and Cook could be found are then given and the letter proceeds -).

I knew what I was doing, I was mentally allright and I don’t want to go and lie in the Supreme Court – I have committed a very serious offence and I should cop the punishment. Please subpoena all reports and alert the judge. Thanks. Please reply.”

21 One might infer that “Dr Walnut” was Dr Allnutt. “Dr Pauline” may well be Dr Yvonne Skinner”.

22 All 3 experts had access to the Rozelle Hospital notes or at least detailed summaries of them. Dr Langeluddecke recorded that on the Accused’s admission to Rozelle Hospital he presented with severe major depression with some low grade psychotic symptoms in the form of persecutory/referential delusions and that he was recorded as having thoughts of harming his housemate’s child. She noted that cognitive testing in October 2006 indicated marked widespread cognitive impairment attributed by the person testing to be largely due to depression rather than organic factors. In November 2006 the Accused underwent a course of ECT treatment, developing some manic features in consequence. These dissipated with medication. The Accused was said to have improved following the ECT treatment.

23 She referred also to examinations of the Accused that had occurred on 28 December 2006. One psychiatrist had then concluded that the Accused’s rapport was minimal and his “affect was rather bizarre and incongruous to the situation”. Another had recorded that “his affect was blunted and bland. There were no abnormalities of perception or cognition. He appeared to lack insight into the severity of the crime but was aware it was wrong. He demonstrated ‘nil’ emotional response to this. …. He was diagnosed as suffering a depressive illness with possible psychotic features and was Scheduled.”

24 Dr Langeluddecke noted that neuro-psychometric testing in August 2007 indicated significant cognitive impairment and behavioural/emotional disturbance and expressed the view that these were primarily explicable in terms of a neuro-degenerative condition. She observed that there was evidence of widespread cerebrovascular disease. She opined that the marked cognitive and emotional impairments were likely to have been major contributing factors to his impaired control and regulation of his thinking, behaviour and emotional state before, during and since the events of 22 December 2006.

25 In his report of 6 February 2008, Dr Allnutt records meeting the Accused on 4 occasions. He said that the Accused told him that on the night before he was admitted to Canterbury Hospital he had thoughts of killing the deceased, thoughts that lasted a few minutes but which were not accompanied by any associated urges. The Accused had thought at the time that “it was not right”.

26 The Accused told Dr Allnutt that on 22 December when he saw crutches lying on the lounge “the idea of killing the baby came to mind”. The Accused said he was unable to explain how this came about, he wasn’t sure what to do, he wasn’t feeling too pleased about it, thinking “this thing could get me into trouble” but something was urging him to kill the baby but he didn’t know what. The Accused observed that “back home people cast spells on others to do bad things” and at the time it was as if somebody had cast a spell on him. He recalled closing the back door so as not to be disturbed while he was killing the child.

27 The Accused said “nothing much was going on in my mind, I just thought of killing the baby” and “my mind was very clear, just the thought of killing the baby”. The Accused could not give an underlying reason for the decision but he “knew is wasn’t right”. He said “I knew I had to rush before the mother came back because it was not right, I couldn’t control myself, that’s the problem”. Asked what he meant by this the Accused said “the thoughts, the idea of killing the baby, I couldn’t control them to realise I shouldn’t do it, as if something was pushing me to do it”.

28 In a later interview the Accused had said that on the day of the homicide he felt unwell, his “thinking was not clear” and felt “blocked”. He had only one thought in his mind at the time of the killing and at the time of interview said he could not understand why he had acted on the thought. During this interview the Accused said that at the time of the killing he had no thoughts of right or wrong and his view that what he had done was wrong was a retrospective view.

29 Dr Allnutt gave further information as to the content of notes made by hospital staff on something of the order of 25 separate occasions during the mid July to mid December 2006 period and others made since the Accused was incarcerated. It is unnecessary that I refer to more than a few of these. Depression is a constant theme in the pre-killing notes although on 1 November 2006 the Accused is recorded as suffering psychotic symptoms. On 14 July 2006 notes record that that the Accused was almost mute, his thought blocked with psychomotor retardation, he was severely depressed, he described suicidal thoughts and guilty ruminations about strangling the baby. On 15 July notes of a different psychiatrist record that the Accused reported thoughts to kill children of the family with whom he lived, he exhibited thought blocking and appeared to be suffering from a psychotic depression and melancholic depression.

30 When addressing the Accused’s mental state at the time of his offence, Dr Allnutt’s remarks included:-

“There is in my view a strong body of evidence that your client was suffering from a mental illness at the material time of the alleged offence.

There is evidence of mental disorder prior (to) the alleged offence… CT and MRI scan showed abnormalities in the brain… The final diagnosis was major depression with melancholic and psychotic features…

Overall, I am of the view that at the material time of the alleged offence your client was experiencing difficulties with processing his thoughts, due to mental condition consistent with the legal definition of both a “disease of the mind” and an “underlying condition”.

Given the nature of his symptoms it is probable that he experienced a “defect of reason”, as a consequence of this.

It is unlikely that at the material time the “disease of the mind” that he suffered was of a nature and severity that he lacked capacity to understand the nature and quality of his actions; that is, that he likely maintained capacity to know that hitting a child with a crutch, strangling her, or cutting the throat of a child with a knife or a hatchet, could potentially result in harm and death to a child.

Whether or not your client lost capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his action is a somewhat more difficult question. He manifests some knowledge or wrongfulness (he acknowledged that at the time he closed the kitchen door in order to avoid being disturbed); his decision making was ambivalent; wasn’t “feeling too pleased about what he was doing”; he thought “this thing could get me into trouble”; he said “I had to rush before the mother came back because it was not right”; (afterwards he had feelings of guilt). On the other hand he had difficulties with thought processing (he describes being significantly preoccupied with a thought to kill the baby; this thought was a persistent thought and was accompanied with a strong urge to act; he felt he could not control the thought; that he felt pushed by something; his body was heavy and his thoughts slow; his thinking was “stuck” and “blocked”; he found it “very hard to think”). Thus while there were elements of his thinking at the time that suggest that wrongfulness was an issue for him; there are also elements that suggest he had difficulty thinking about the issues to the extent that he would have been limited in his capacity to reason about the wrongfulness of the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure. If the court accepts this then he would likely be successful in a defence of mental illness.”

31 Dr Allnutt’s report of 5 September 2008 reflects some significant differences from the contents of the other reports. It was primarily directed to the Applicant’s fitness to stand trial. In it Dr Allnutt records that the accused on 1 September 2008 had explained that he had chosen to plead guilty because of receiving advice from another inmate to the effect that if the accused became a forensic patient he would be locked up for many years and did not want to take medication. The accused also gave a history of being subjected to “black magic” and gave a history of matters involved in ASIO, the Commissioner of Police, a member of Parliament, the death of a Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji. The accused went on to say that while in Rozelle he had been affected by devilism leading to a mistake in diagnosis by a doctor at Rozelle. “He did not want the baby’s mother suing the doctor. He was therefore choosing to plead guilty to protect the doctor because it was not mental illness, it was devilism and when she asked him how he was feeling, he said he was feeling alright.”

32 Dr Allnutt opined:-

“Your client suffers from ongoing active symptoms of a significant psychotic disorder characterised by delusional beliefs of persecution, believing he to have people to be conspiring against him to place black magic spells on him involving “devilism”. Your client’s insight in regards to this is negligible and he interprets this as something other than a mental illness. In my opinion, his presentation is consistent with mental illness of schizophrenic type.

Overall, I believe that your client should be regarded as unfit to stand trial. He is significantly pre-occupied with a complex delusional belief. That, in my view, impacts on his decision making processes, particularly around the choice of plea…”

33 Dr Allnutt was called. In his evidence he said while the Accused might have been aware of the wrongfulness of the killing the state of his mind was such that he would have been unable to reason about that wrongfulness in the way a sane man could have done so. The urge to kill was a consequence of his illness and probably delusional beliefs. Dr Allnut opined that the Accused probably would have been aware of the physical acts he was performing but would have a mental illness defence on the basis of not knowing they were wrong.

34 Dr Skinner interviewed the Accused in July 2008. He told her that:-

“When he saw a crutch against the wall in the room, the idea of killing the baby suddenly came into his mind. He had no thought of this kind before he saw the crutch. He picked up the crutch and hit the baby…

Mr Singh had previously closed the door. When I asked him about this, he said that when he closed the door, he had the thought in his mind that he should not be interrupted…

… He said he had never had any problems with the baby. …

Mr Singh is at a loss to explain what had happened. He said he cannot explain some of the statements he made to police at Burwood. He said he told officers at Burwood that he wanted to go to jail, but that could not be true. He also told them he was afraid that the mother might kill him, which is ridiculous and he could not explain why he had said that.”

35 Later Dr Skinner observed that on examination:-

“He could not explain why he acted as he did in relation to the alleged offences and could not describe his emotional state or reasons for his behaviour. He could only describe a feeling of being very unwell, and feeling compelled to act as he did.

There were no signs of cognitive dysfunction and no signs of psychotic phenomena.”

36 Dr Skinner also had access to the Rozelle Hospital medical records and Dr Allnutt’s report of 6 February 2008. Her conclusion in her first report included that the Accused developed a mental illness, psychotic depression in about July 2006. She opined that the ERISP “shows irrational thinking, consistent with a diagnosis of psychotic depression with statements such as wanting to go into custody and believing the baby’s mother would kill him”. She went on:-

“The ERISP interview of 22 December 2006 shows irrational thinking, consistent with a diagnosis of psychotic depression, with statements such as wanting to go into custody and believing the baby’s mother would kill him.

I believe that at the time of the alleged offences, Mr Singh was suffering from severe mental illness that significantly impaired his capacity to understand the nature and quality of his actions, or to understand that what he was doing was wrong. I accept his explanation that by closing the door and hitting the children he was trying to ensure that he was not interrupted, but I do not think this indicated that he appreciated that what he was doing was wrong.”

37 In her report of 4 December 2008, Dr Skinner recounts that between 15 July 2008 when she saw the Accused and he displayed no signs of cognitive dysfunction and when she examined him on 1 December 2008 his mental state had deteriorated. She opined that at the time of her report the Accused was:-

“Suffering from an organic neurological disorder, probably early dementia complicated by metabolic changes caused by his medical conditions, diabetes, hypertension and recurrent urinary tract infections. I consider that he was suffering from a psychotic depression at the time of the alleged offences.”

38 Dr Skinner observed also that consistent with early dementia or other neurodegenerative disorder was an MRI brain scan performed in November 2006 which was reported as showing chronic small vessel ischaemia bilaterally.

39 The final piece of evidence in this area I should mention is that the Accused was visited on 19 or 20 December and early in the morning of 22 December 2006 by community nurses. There were concerns and indications that he was not taking medication prescribed prior to his leaving Rozelle although it may be – the evidence is conflicting – that at least on 22 December the Accused asserted that he had done so.

40 Is the defence of mental illness made out? In my view it is.

41 Contributing to that conclusion is the complete lack of any rational explanation for both the killing and the method by which it was achieved. In that connection, I do not ignore the various statements the Accused has made from time to time but whatever reasoning one seeks to employ in relation to those statements I am still left with the conclusion expressed in the first sentence of this paragraph.

42 I share the view expressed by Dr Allnutt that the Accused’s shutting of the door so he would not be interrupted argues for a conclusion that he had an appreciation that what he was doing was wrong but despite this there is much to be said for the view that he must not have been able to think rationally about how wrong or why it was wrong. Even without the final opinions of doctors Allnutt and Skinner, the circumstances speak loudly for the view that the Accused could not at the time have been able to reason about the matter with any moderate degree of sense or composure. Dr Allnutt’s opinion puts that conclusion beyond doubt. And though I do not find Dr Skinner’s views as convincing, her failure to disagree significantly with Dr Allnutt adds weight to his conclusion.

43 I make it clear that I do not ignore the letters that the Accused wrote and which I have quoted. However, the weight to be given to the statements in them is much overshadowed by the other matters to which I have referred.

44 There can be no doubt that but for the defence of mental illness, the Accused, on the limited evidence available, committed the offence charged. However in the circumstances to which I have referred the appropriate verdict is “not guilty on the ground of mental illness”.

45 Subject to anything the parties may wish to say, the appropriate order thus seems to be that Mr Singh continue to be detained in the Long Bay Prison Hospital until released by due process of law.

**********

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

R v Singh [2010] NSWSC 638

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

0

Anderson v Hotel Capital Trading Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 1195

R v Porter [1933] HCA 1

CITATION:	R v SINGH [2010] NSWSC 638
HEARING DATE(S):	7 December 2009
JUDGMENT DATE :	29 June 2010
JUDGMENT OF:	Hulme J at 1
DECISION:	Verdict is not guilty on the ground of mental illness. Mr Singh continue to be detained in the Long Bay Prison Hospital until released by due process of law.
PARTIES:	Regina Jayant Kumar SINGH
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2008/00002863
COUNSEL:	T McCarthy (Crown) P Boulten SC (Accused)
SOLICITORS:	S Kavanagh Director Public Prosecutions Ford Criminal Lawyers