Legal Research
Cases
R v Thompson (No 1)

R v Thompson (No 1)

Case [2022] NSWSC 1044 5 August 2022

Defence of Mental Health Impairment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thompson (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1044
Hearing dates: 25 to 28 July 2022
Date of orders: 05 August 2022
Decision date: 05 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Walton J
Decision:
Act proven but not criminally responsible

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – elements of the offence of murder – defence of mental health impairment – Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) s 28 – Judge alone trial – two limbs of the defence of mental health impairment – meaning of “mental health impairment” under s 4 – whether the act was wrong – s 29 directions – Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW) – s 133 directions – expert evidence – special verdict – act proven but accused not criminally responsible

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 131
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic
Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 29, 30, 31

Cases Cited:
AK v Western Australia (2018) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8
Carter v R [2019] NSWCCA 11
Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
Fleming v The Queen (1988) 197 CLR 250
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 174 CLR 500
Lucas v The Queen (1970) 120 CLR 171
R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
R v Jenkins (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20
R v Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644; [2008] VSCA 75
R v Minnani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064
Spiteri-Ahern v R [2022] NSWCCA 56
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Harley Thompson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown Prosecutor)
S Fraser (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/00224600

Judgment

On 26 July 2022, the accused, Harley Thompson, was arraigned before me on an indictment dated 10 February 2022 which charged that, on 31 July 2020, at Bomaderry in the State of New South Wales he did murder Cameron Johnston (“the deceased”) (“the alleged offence”). The accused pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental health impairment.
On the evening of 31 July 2020, over a period of approximately one hour and a half, the accused attended the property of the deceased on Leonard Street in Bomaderry (“the premises”) on three occasions. On the first two occasions, he damaged property of the deceased whilst yelling abuse at the deceased, a man he did not know (“the first incident” and “the second incident”).
On the third occasion (“the third incident”), the accused returned to the deceased’s house and set fire to the deceased’s house. The deceased did not escape the house and died. An autopsy completed by forensic pathologist Dr Bernard I’Ons determined that the cause of death was carbon monoxide toxicity although it may be noted…

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 Thompson (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1044
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1044
Decision Date: 05 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson (No 1) involved the respondent, Thompson, who was charged with murder. The dispute centred on the applicability of the defence of mental health impairment under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) at the time of the alleged offence. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, before Justice Leeming.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether Thompson's mental health impairment constituted a defence to murder and, if so, whether the jury should be directed to return a special verdict that Thompson had committed the act but was not criminally responsible due to his mental health impairment. This involved interpreting the statutory provisions concerning mental health impairment, specifically sections 28 and 29 of the Act, and understanding the meaning of "mental health impairment" under section 4. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural requirements, including whether the trial should be conducted before a judge alone, and the admissibility of expert evidence.

The court determined that Thompson's mental health impairment did indeed constitute a defence to the charge of murder. Justice Leeming held that the term "mental health impairment" under section 4 of the Act should be interpreted broadly to include impairments of mind, intellect, or judgement that resulted in a significant cognitive or psychological dysfunction. Given the evidence, it was clear that Thompson's mental health impairment affected his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. Consequently, the court directed that Thompson was not criminally responsible for the act, and a special verdict was returned accordingly. The trial was held before a judge alone, in accordance with section 28 of the Act, and expert evidence was appropriately admitted and considered.

In summary, the court found that Thompson was not criminally responsible for the act due to his mental health impairment and directed a special verdict to that effect. This decision highlights the importance of interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and understanding the implications of mental health impairments in criminal trials.

Orders