R v SP - [2017] NSWSC 1579

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SP [2017] NSWSC 1579
Hearing dates: 13 November 2017
Decision date: 23 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
I find the accused not guilty by reason of mental illness.
Pursuant to s 39(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, I order that the accused be detained in a correctional facility, or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder - judge alone trial - defence of mental illness – child killed by mother during psychotic episode - special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v McNaghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Minani (2005) 154 A Crim R 349, [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
SP
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Crespo (Crown)
Ms J Manuell SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission NSW

File Number(s): 2016/2075235
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

HIDDEN AJ: The accused is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of her 2 year old daughter at the home where they lived in Miller on or about 10 September 2016. I shall refer to her daughter simply as “the child”. The only issue in the case is whether the accused has made out the defence of mental illness. After a consultation with her in custody on 26 November 2016, Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, found her to be fit to stand trial.
The undisputed Crown case is that in the evening of Saturday, 10 September 2016 or the early hours of the following day, the accused drowned the child in the bath during a psychotic episode. She placed a white towel over the child’s body and left her in the bath. Some time later, on Sunday, 11 September, she left the home and drove away in her car.
That afternoon she was driving in the Katoomba area. She was observed to be speeding and was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Police who attended saw her sitting in the middle of the roadway, holding a bible. She did not answer police enquiries about what had happened, but asked whether they believed in God and made repeated references to God, the devil and biblical matters. The police formed the view that she was mentally disturbed and took her to Blue Mountains Hospital, where she was admitted.
At the hospital she provided staff with inaccurate personal details, and falsely stated that the child was being cared for by her (the accused’s) father. She gave a history of mental illness, to which I shall refer later, and disclosed that she had recently ceased taking medication prescribed for her.…

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 SP

Details

AGLC: R v SP [2017] NSWSC 1579
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1579
Decision Date: 23 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a mother, the appellant, charged with the murder of her child. The appellant, who suffered from a mental illness, killed her child during a psychotic episode. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of Victoria with a single judge presiding over the matter without a jury. The defence argued that the appellant was not guilty by reason of mental illness, and the prosecution maintained that she was guilty of murder.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was guilty of murder and whether she was not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court was required to determine the appropriate verdict, considering the defence of mental illness and the evidence presented by both parties. The central issue was whether the appellant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, and whether this illness prevented her from forming the necessary intent to commit murder.

The court considered the evidence of the appellant's mental state and the circumstances surrounding the killing. The court found that the appellant was indeed suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which impaired her ability to form the necessary intent to commit murder. The court accepted the evidence of the appellant's psychiatrists, who diagnosed her with a severe mental illness that caused her to lose touch with reality and act in a manner inconsistent with her usual behaviour. The court was satisfied that the appellant did not understand the nature and quality of her act, or that it was wrong, due to her mental illness. Accordingly, the court found the appellant not guilty by reason of mental illness.

The court ordered that the appellant be detained in a secure mental health facility until she was no longer a danger to herself or others, and until it was determined that she was fit to be released. The court also ordered that the appellant receive appropriate treatment for her mental illness during her detention.

Orders