R v Stojic (No 2) - [2020] NSWSC 730

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stojic (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 730
Hearing dates: 1, 3 – 4 June 2020
Date of orders: 12 June 2020
Decision date: 12 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1) The verdicts of the Court are:
In respect of count 1, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.
In respect of count 2, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.
In respect of count 3, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.
In respect of count 4, not guilty.
In respect of count 5, not guilty.
In respect of count 6, not guilty.
In respect of count 7, not guilty.
In respect of count 8, not guilty.
In respect of count 9, not guilty.

(2) In respect of sequences 3 and 5 on the section 166 certificate, the Court finds the offences proved but makes an order directing that the charges be dismissed, pursuant to s 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

(3) The Court orders, pursuant to s 39(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), that Simon Slavko Stojic is to be returned to his present place of custody and detained there, or at such other place as is deemed appropriate according to law, until such time as he is released by due process of law.
(4) The Court directs the Registrar of the Court to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these verdicts and orders.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Defence of mental illness – Accused suffering from Chronic Delusional Disorder with both grandiose and paranoid delusions – Accused suffering a delusion he was a federal agent protecting Australia – Expert evidence unanimous that accused was suffering from mental illness at the time of the acts – Expert evidence unanimous that accused could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure and did not know that the acts were wrong, judged according to the everyday standards of reasonable people – Not guilty by reason of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; 8 ER 718
The Queen v. Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49
Radford v R (1985) 42 SASR 266
R v Hadler (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1804
R v Minani (2005) 62 NSWLR 48; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Stojic [2018] NSWSC 1893
R v Stojic [2020] NSWSC 170
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Simon Slavko Stojic…

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 Stojic (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Stojic (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 730
Case: [2020] NSWSC 730
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stojic (No 2), the appellant was charged with the murder of his former partner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant raised a defence of mental illness. The court had to determine whether the appellant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence and whether this illness prevented him from knowing the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure and understand that his acts were wrong. The court considered expert evidence which was unanimous that the appellant was suffering from a Chronic Delusional Disorder with both grandiose and paranoid delusions at the time of the offence. The experts also agreed that the appellant's mental illness prevented him from reasoning about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure and knowing that his acts were wrong.

The court found that the appellant was suffering from a severe mental illness that impaired his ability to reason and understand the wrongfulness of his actions. The court accepted the unanimous expert evidence that the appellant was labouring under a delusion that he was a federal agent protecting Australia. Given the nature and extent of the appellant's mental illness, the court concluded that he was not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness. The court ordered the appellant to be detained in a psychiatric facility.

The court's decision was based on the clear and compelling evidence that the appellant was suffering from a severe mental illness that prevented him from understanding the wrongfulness of his actions. The unanimous expert evidence was determinative in this case, and the court accepted that the appellant was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness.

Orders