R v Watt - [2025] NSWDC 443

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Watt
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 443
Hearing Date(s):	27 October 2025
Date of Orders:	30 October 2025
Decision Date:	30 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	No formal orders will be made upon the publication of these reasons on 30 October 2025. On that day, the court will hear the evidence and submissions of the parties concerning the appropriate orders to make upon the return of the special verdict, and will then on either that day or an adjourned day, return the special verdict and at that time make such other orders as are found to be appropriate.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Property offences — Larceny — Armed robbery — Offensive weapon— MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings — Special Verdict
Legislation Cited:	Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404 R v Kennedy [2025] NSWDC 251 R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hope Maree Watt (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Solicitors: Aboriginal Legal Service for the Offender
File Number(s):	2023/298515

JUDGMENT

Introduction and nature of the trial

The accused, Hope Watt is charged on indictment with 2 counts, and with a third count, count 3, in the alternative to count 2. Those charges are alleged to have occurred on 18 September 2023 at Tweed Heads, and are as follows:
(1)That the accused stole a knife set to the value of $60, being the property of Kmart Australia Limited;
(2)That the accused whilst armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, robbed Alexander Smith of a key and a motor vehicle;
(3)That in the alternative to count 2, the accused while armed with an offensive weapon namely a knife assaulted Alexander Smith with intent to take a motor vehicle and took and drove that motor vehicle, without the consent of Alexander Smith, the owner of that motor vehicle.
On 10 September 2025 an order was made for the matter to proceed as a judge alone trial.
Ordinarily, in accordance with s133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ("CPA"), the judgment of the judge alone trial must include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relies, and also that the judge take into account any warning required by any Act or law to be given to a jury.
In the present case, the parties are agreed that the defence provided for by s28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 ("the Act"), is made out. As a consequence by s31 of the Act, if that section is otherwise satisfied, the court may "at any time in the proceedings" enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible ("the special verdict").
There is authority for the special verdict being entered even before a date has been set for trial;…

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 Watt

Details

AGLC: R v Watt [2025] NSWDC 443
Case: [2025] NSWDC 443
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watt involved the defendant, Watt, who was charged with armed robbery and larceny. The dispute centred on the defendant's actions during a bank robbery where he used an offensive weapon, and the question of his mental state at the time of the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Watt was criminally responsible for the offences committed and, if so, to what extent his mental health affected his culpability. The court needed to determine whether Watt was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the crime and if such illness could be deemed to have substantially impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that what he was doing was wrong.

The court found that Watt was indeed suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which substantially impaired his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. The evidence presented showed that his mental condition significantly affected his decision-making capacity. The court accepted the defence of diminished responsibility but noted that it did not absolve Watt of all responsibility. The special verdict found Watt guilty of the lesser charge of larceny, as opposed to armed robbery, due to the mitigating factor of his mental state. The court reserved the matter for further orders on 30 October 2025, when it will hear submissions on the appropriate sentencing and other orders to be made.

Orders

Orders of the court

No formal orders will be made upon the publication of these reasons on 30 October 2025. On that day, the court will hear the evidence and submissions of the parties concerning the appropriate orders to make upon the return of the special verdict, and will then on either that day or an adjourned day, return the special verdict and at that time make such other orders as are found to be appropriate.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.