R v Waters - [2015] NSWSC 235

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Waters [2015] NSWSC 235
Hearing dates: 23 March 2015
Date of orders: 09 April 2015
Decision date: 09 April 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
I enter a special verdict that the accused, Eliza Lily Waters is not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
I make the following orders:
1.That she, Eliza Lily Waters, be detained at the Step Down Unit at Silverwater Correctional Centre, or such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
2. That the Registrar of the Court notify the Minister for Health of this judgment and order.
3. That the Registrar of the Court notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of this judgment and order and provide the Tribunal with the following documentation:
(i) A copy of these reasons for verdict and orders;
(ii) A transcript of these proceedings;
(iii) A copy of each of the exhibits tendered at the hearing.

Catchwords: Murder; judge alone trial; defence of mental illness; special verdict - not guilty on the grounds of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (as amended)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Hawkins v the Queen (1994) 179 CLR
R v McNaghten (1843) 8 ER
R v Newbury [2012] NSWSC 1361
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Eliza Lily Waters
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms E Wilkins SC (Crown)
Ms B Rigg SC (Accused)
Solicitor:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/278292

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 23 March 2015 Eliza Lily Waters was charged by way of indictment that, on 13 September 2013, at Medlow Bath in NSW, she murdered Leone Austin. She pleaded not guilty to this charge.
An order had previously been made, by consent, that the proceedings be tried by judge alone. Accordingly, the trial proceeded before me without a jury. Both the Crown and the defence tendered a number of documents, all of them by consent. These included a statement of agreed facts. No oral evidence was called by either party, resulting in a very short trial. Both counsel also handed up extremely helpful written submissions. They were in agreement that the appropriate verdict, in all the circumstances, was the special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
Having now had the opportunity of reading the various documents tendered by the parties, as well as the authorities referred to by counsel, I am firmly of the view that this is the only appropriate verdict in this trial, and it is accordingly the verdict I will be entering. The following are my reasons for reaching this conclusion, as required by s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (as amended).

Outline of the offence

This is a brief account only of the offence. I shall be describing it in greater detail later.

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 Waters

Details

AGLC: R v Waters [2015] NSWSC 235
Case: [2015] NSWSC 235
Decision Date: 09 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waters involved the defendant, Waters, who was charged with the murder of an individual. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether Waters was guilty of murder, and if so, whether he could be held criminally responsible given the defence of mental illness. The court was also tasked with determining whether the appropriate course of action was a special verdict, declaring Waters not guilty on the grounds of mental illness.

The primary legal issue revolved around the applicability of the defence of mental illness and whether it was substantiated by the evidence presented. The court needed to determine if Waters' mental state at the time of the offence negated his criminal responsibility. This involved examining the medical evidence and expert opinions provided regarding Waters' mental health and whether his actions were a result of a mental disorder.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in delivering its decision, found that Waters was not criminally responsible for the murder due to his mental illness at the time of the offence. The court considered the evidence and expert opinions, which demonstrated that Waters suffered from a severe mental disorder that impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. Consequently, the court concluded that a special verdict was appropriate, declaring Waters not guilty on the grounds of mental illness. This decision ensured that Waters received the necessary treatment and support rather than being subjected to a criminal penalty.

Orders