R v Spencer - [2020] NSWSC 386

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Spencer [2020] NSWSC 386
Hearing dates: 7 April 2020
Date of orders: 09 April 2020
Decision date: 09 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
1. Accused found not guilty by reason of mental illness.
2. Ordered to be detained until released by due process of law.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – murder – defence of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).
Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew Spencer (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Liam Shaw (Crown)
Mr Eric Wilson SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018//279561
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The accused, Matthew Spencer, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of his father, Shane Spencer. It is the Crown case that he killed his father on 11 September 2018 by stabbing him repeatedly at the home at Trundle where they were living. Pursuant to s 184 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), on the advice of his counsel, he has made formal admissions of the elements of murder: that he caused the death of his father by stabbing him multiple times in the chest, with the intention of killing him. In any event, there is ample evidence in the Crown case to establish those elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The only issue in the trial is whether the accused has made out the defence of mental illness or, alternatively, the partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). There is a large volume of material before me, including psychiatric reports obtained by the accused’s representatives and by the Crown, tending to establish the defence of mental illness and rendering it unnecessary to consider the issue of substantial impairment. The Crown accepts that the defence of mental illness is made out. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the evidence in detail. A relatively brief summary will suffice.

Background

The accused was 26 years old at the time of the offence, and is now 27. He is the only child of his parents’ union, but he has five half-sisters who were born of other relationships of his mother. Two of those sisters, Rebecca Wilkes and Hannah Broadhurst, made statements to the police which are in evidence. Also in evidence are statements of the deceased’s father, Henry Spencer, his sisters, Deborah Keighran and Leonie Head, and his niece, Kimberley Ryan. A picture of the accused’s disturbed background emerges from those statements and the statements of other witnesses, together with the history which he provided to the two psychiatrists who provided reports.
His parents had a turbulent relationship, involving violence on 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 Spencer

Details

AGLC: R v Spencer [2020] NSWSC 386
Case: [2020] NSWSC 386
Decision Date: 09 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Spencer came before the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant was charged with the murder of a man. The case involved a complex defence where the appellant claimed to have been suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which resulted in an inability to form the requisite intent for murder. The appeal was brought to challenge the trial judge's decision to proceed with a trial by judge alone, rather than a jury trial, in light of the defence of mental illness.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge was correct in determining that a trial by judge alone was appropriate, considering the nature of the defence and the appellant's plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court was required to consider the statutory provisions governing the trial of indictable offences, the principles relating to the appropriate mode of trial when mental illness is raised as a defence, and the rights of the accused under the Australian Constitution. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the trial judge's decision was in error and whether it had an impact on the fairness of the trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial judge erred in proceeding with a trial by judge alone. The court found that when a defence of mental illness is raised, and the accused pleads not guilty by reason of mental illness, the statutory presumption in favour of a jury trial should be displaced only if exceptional circumstances exist. The court noted that no such exceptional circumstances were demonstrated in this case. The appellate court emphasised the importance of ensuring the fairness of the trial process, particularly in cases involving significant issues of mental health. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial, with the appropriate mode of trial to be determined afresh.

Orders