R v Williams

[2025] NSWSC 85

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Williams [2025] NSWSC 85

Hearing dates:

20 February 2025

Date of orders:

20 February 2025

Decision date:

20 February 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Fagan J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 49(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) the accused, Wayne Williams, is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

(2) Pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act the accused is remanded in custody.

(3) The reports of Dr Ellis and Dr Martin are to be forwarded to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and to Justice Health.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – murder – fitness inquiry – fitness to be tried – orders made under s 49(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) – referral to Mental Health Review Tribunal

Legislation Cited:

Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Rex
Wayne Williams

Representation:

Counsel:
S Traynor (Crown)
M Davies (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)

File Number(s):

2023/204105

Publication restriction:

No

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: The accused, Wayne Williams, is charged with the murder of his cousin, Dwayne Williams, at Lavington on 13 July 2023. It is alleged that the accused stabbed the deceased in the neck in the early hours of 26 June 2023, when both of them were staying temporarily at a house in Albury. The deceased sustained very severe wounds, of which he died after 18 days in hospital. The date and place of the murder as charged are the date and place of Mr Dwayne Williams' ultimate demise.

2. The accused has been in custody since 26 June 2023, now one year and eight months. He was committed to this Court on 22 October 2024 and was first before the Criminal List Judge on 11 December 2024. He was not arraigned at that time because a question as to the accused's fitness to stand trial had been raised by the defence, pursuant to s 42 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The Court determined that an inquiry should be conducted to ascertain whether the accused is fit to be tried. That inquiry has been undertaken today on the basis of documentary evidence jointly tendered by the Crown and the defence.

3. The following provisions of the Act govern the inquiry and stipulate the orders that the Court may make (extracted so far as relevant):

4 Mental health impairment

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has a mental health impairment if—

(a) the person has a temporary or ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory, and

(b) the disturbance would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and

(c) the disturbance impairs the emotional wellbeing, judgment or behaviour of the person.

(2) A mental health impairment may arise from any of the following disorders but may also arise for other reasons—

[…]

(c) a psychotic disorder,

(d) a substance induced mental disorder that is not temporary.

(3) A person does not have a mental health impairment for the purposes of this Act if the person’s impairment is caused solely by—

(a) the temporary effect of ingesting a substance, or

(b) a substance use disorder.

36 Fitness test

(1) For the purposes of proceedings to which this Part applies, a person is taken to be unfit to be tried for an offence if the person, because the person has a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, or both, or for another reason, cannot do one or more of the following—

(a) understand the offence the subject of the proceedings,

(b) plead to the charge,

(c) exercise the right to challenge jurors,

(d) understand generally the nature of the proceedings as an inquiry into whether the person committed the offence with which the person is charged,

(e) follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense,

(f) understand the substantial effect of any evidence given against the person,

(g) make a defence or answer to the charge,

(h) instruct the person’s legal representative so as to mount a defence and provide the person’s version of the facts to that legal representative and to the court if necessary,

(i) decide what defence the person will rely on and make that decision known to the person’s legal representative and the court.

(2) This section does not limit the grounds on which a court may consider a person to be unfit to be tried for an offence.

44 Inquiry Procedures

(1) The question of a defendant’s unfitness to be tried for an offence is to be determined by the judge alone.

(2) At an inquiry, the defendant is to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner, unless the court otherwise allows.

(3) An inquiry is not to be conducted in an adversarial manner.

(4) The onus of proof of the question of a defendant’s unfitness to be tried for an offence does not rest on any particular party to the proceedings.

(5) In addition to any other matter the court may consider in determining whether the defendant is unfit to be tried for an offence, the court is to consider the following—

(a) whether the trial process can be modified, or assistance provided, to facilitate the defendant’s understanding and effective participation in the trial,

(b) the likely length and complexity of the trial,

(c) whether the defendant is represented by an Australian legal practitioner, or can obtain representation by an Australian legal practitioner.

(6) A determination by the judge must include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.

47 Finding after inquiry that defendant is unfit to be tried

(1) If a defendant is found unfit to be tried for an offence following an inquiry, the court must also determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, during the period of 12 months after the finding of unfitness, the defendant—

(a) may become fit to be tried for the offence, or

(b) will not become fit to be tried for the offence.

(2) The court may do one or more of the following after a finding that a defendant is unfit to be tried for an offence—

[…]

(d) make an order remanding the defendant in custody,

(e) make other orders that the court thinks appropriate.

49 Tribunal review and court orders after finding that defendant may be fit to be tried within 12 months

(1) The court must refer the defendant to the Tribunal for review if the court determines that the defendant is unfit to be tried for an offence and may become fit to be tried for the offence during the period of 12 months after the finding.

4. The evidence tendered on the inquiry comprises psychiatric reports of Dr Andrew Ellis, engaged by the defence, dated 5 June 2024 and 17 February 2025; psychiatric reports of Dr Adam Martin, engaged by the Crown, dated 16 September 2024 and 18 February 2025; an affidavit of the accused's former solicitor, Ms Jessica Munro, affirmed 10 February 2025; a selection of Justice Health records and the accused's criminal record, in the form of a Bail Report, and custodial records. Each of the psychiatric experts has also provided brief supplementary information by emails, both sent on 18 February 2025.

Dr Ellis – mental impairment and present unfitness

5. The accused is an Indigenous man, now 34 years old. He has been a long-term user of alcohol and numerous illicit drugs, notably methylamphetamine, which he has consumed since the age of 17 years, sometimes using up to 1 gram per day.

6. The accused reported to Dr Ellis in June 2024 that from the age of 22 he has heard "voices". He said that the voices have been present every day since he has been in custody. He told Dr Ellis that in custody he was finding it difficult to concentrate and that he "just drifts off". Dr Ellis observed that the accused had difficulty expressing himself and organising his thoughts. His attempts to express himself were disjointed and not coherent. The doctor set out one vivid example of this in his report.

7. Dr Ellis ascertained that the accused had not previously been admitted to psychiatric care. Based on the information available to him the doctor thought that the period in which the accused had been experiencing auditory hallucinations may have been shorter than the accused himself described and would more likely have been confined to the preceding six or so years.

8. During contact with a Community Corrections psychologist in 2018 the accused experienced auditory hallucinations following methamphetamine use. He reported paranoid ideas at that time. In July 2019 and again in November 2021, when in custody in relation to earlier charges, the accused experienced auditory hallucinations. Those symptoms were also proximate to illicit drug use. Antipsychotic medication was administered to him for a short period while in custody in late 2021, but it was stopped in February 2022.

9. In February 2023 the accused was apprehended by police after behaving erratically and violently in Albury. On being taken to the Emergency Department of Albury Hospital he was sedated with antipsychotic medication. Drug induced psychosis was recorded with respect to him at that time, but without any record of a thorough psychiatric specialist's assessment having been made.

10. In his report of 5 June 2024 Dr Ellis identified mental health impairments in the accused, in accordance with the definition of that term in s 4 of the Act. He stated the following:

Re: Psychiatric Diagnosis (DSM-5)2

He presents with psychiatric symptoms that occur in the context of a long- standing substance use disorder, with particular substances of stimulants (methamphetamine), cannabis and alcohol being used long term. […] This disorder is currently in remission in a controlled environment.

He would meet criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He currently presents with significant thought disorder, delusions of reference and derogatory and commentary auditory hallucinations. These symptoms have persisted in custody long after access to substances that might mimic them has been reduced. He reports symptoms occurring for over a decade. The clinical notes and observations of others likely reduce the time of this to about six years, and are recorded periodically rather than constantly, usually in the context of substance use. […] It is likely that substance use exacerbates the presentation of symptoms, however it is not likely the sole cause given how long symptoms have now been present, and the presence now in custody after cessation of substance use. Earlier episodes may have been substance induced only, but have now progressed to chronic symptoms. It may be that when substance free his symptoms are less prominent and he is able to mask them. He has significant formal thought disorder and change to his emotional expression which is more in keeping with an underlying mental illness like schizophrenia, rather than psychotic symptoms (delusions and hallucinations) only caused by substance use. It is not considered that he is feigning his presentation.

[…]

He may have cognitive problems (such and memory, processing speed and conceptual organisation) which could relate to intellectual disability, a chronic mental illness, chronic substance use or a combination. He reported needing special schooling and poor academic performance. His cognition should be formally measured once his schizophrenia is well treated. [...]

11. With respect to the question that I am required to decide under s 36(1) of the Act, Dr Ellis gave this opinion at pages 10 to 11 of his report of 5 June 2024:

Re: Fitness to be Tried

I am of the opinion that [the accused] is suffering from a mental health impairment (schizophrenia) which is characterised by delusions and hallucinations. Schizophrenia can be considered a “mental health impairment” as it is a clinically significant condition for diagnostic purpose in all major classifications of mental disorder. The disorder impairs his thought by delusions and disorganisation and his perception by hallucination. Schizophrenia is an on- going disorder, and has temporary exacerbations. Although he was using substances, this was in my opinion not the likely the sole cause of his presentation. Schizophrenia impairs his emotional wellbeing, judgment and behaviour evidenced by self reported distress and poor social function.

As noted in the diagnostic opinion, he may have cognitive impairment, but evaluation for this will require time and treatment of his schizophrenia.

It is likely at present that a court could find him unfit to be tried. This is generally due to his untreated symptoms of schizophrenia, in particular formal thought disorder, however also his general sense of paranoia and lack of trust in his legal representatives. The opinion regarding each element of the test is as follows;

(a) understand the offence the subject of the proceedings

He has a basic understanding of the offence of murder.

(b) plead to the charge

While he understands the basic pleas, given his diagnosis of schizophrenia he has no understanding of the mental health pleas and their applicability to his case.

(c) exercise the right to challenge jurors

He was not able to demonstrate this capacity at the current interview.

(d) understand generally the nature of the proceedings as an inquiry into whether the person committed the offence with which the person is charged

He has significant familiarity with the legal system and process. Despite this he currently has a poor understanding of the roles of persons in the court. It was not clear if he was able to understand the trial as an inquiry into his conduct.

(e) follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense

He displays considerable difficulty maintaining concentration and focus in a controlled interview setting. This is primarily due to his formal thought disorder. His underlying cognitive function and lack of education also likely contribute. In a court room setting it is likely he would be very distractible and not able to follow understand proceedings, even at a basic level.

(f) understand the substantial effect of any evidence given against the person

He was not able to articulate an understanding of evidence.

(g) make a defence or answer to the charge

He was not able to describe how he would make a defence in response to the allegations.

(h) instruct the person’s legal representative so as to mount a defence and provide the person’s version of the facts to that legal representative and to the court if necessary

He was only able to provide a disjointed account of the material time. He described suspicion around his legal representatives, and it is likely that he would find it difficult to work with them consistently.

(i) decide what defence the person will rely on and make that decision known to the person’s legal representative and the court

As above, he finds it difficult to trust his legal representatives, likely on the basis of paranoia related to his schizophrenia. He has not been able to articulate clearly what defence he would rely on.

12. In further explanation of item (d), Dr Ellis recorded this in his report of 5 June 2024:

He was not able to describe the functions of the prosecutor or the judge in the court. He was not able to describe the function of the jury. He said that there are “lots of people in the courthouse”. He was not able to pay attention for descriptions of those functions.

13. Dr Ellis attempted to interview the applicant again on 17 February 2025 for an update and to confirm or otherwise the conclusions that he had reached as at June 2024. The doctor had spoken with the accused by audio visual link to the correctional centre in which he is presently detained. Dr Ellis reported the following:

The interview was significantly limited by his antagonistic attitude to questions, and then abruptly leaving. He was markedly irritable and suspicious about the purpose of the interview. It was not clear if he recognised me from the previous interview. His external emotional expression was intense. He would repeat the questions I had asked back at me saying he wanted to know about me. He asked if he could have sex with my wife. He volunteered to proposition men in the prison to have sex with me. He walked out of the interview abruptly.

14. Having been unable to gain further information by direct interview, Dr Ellis examined further records of the accused’s conduct in prison. He noted that there had been significant and extensive reporting of the accused engaging in fights in custody. Dr Ellis also noted that prior to 15 November 2024 the Public Defender had requested that the accused be assessed for suitability for antipsychotic treatment. The request was supported by a letter from Dr Ellis himself. On 15 November 2024 the accused was seen by Dr Baker, a nonspecialist medical officer. He found the accused alert, easily engaged and exhibiting ordinary emotional expression. The accused denied to Dr Baker that he was hearing voices currently but reported that he had had such hallucinatory experiences in the past when using substances. Dr Baker did not diagnose him with any mental illness or cognitive impairment and continued him on antidepressant treatment. Dr Baker thought there was “nil requirement for referral to Mental Health Facility” and made no plan for future management beyond recommending a review early in the current year.

15. The upshot of Dr Ellis’ review of these further Corrective Services and Justice Health records and of his inability to conduct any further interview with the accused was that Dr Ellis found nothing to dissuade him from the opinion he had expressed in his earlier report regarding the subparagraphs of s 36(1) and his ultimate conclusion of unfitness to be tried.

Dr Martin – mental impairment and present unfitness

16. Dr Martin interviewed the accused by audio visual link for one hour and 15 minutes on 22 August 2024. In his report of 16 September 2024 he described his findings from the interview as follows:

He was not outwardly hostile or suspicious, although frequently vague in responses. He lacked spontaneity but responded with normal speed and volume. The responses frequently lacked detail. There was mild thought disorder, with poverty of expressed thought, and some irrelevant responses, although on being directed he was able to sometimes respond more relevantly. No frank delusional ideas were expressed. He denied currently hearing voices.

17. Dr Martin's conclusions with respect to diagnosis of a mental impairment were more tentative and qualified than Dr Ellis’ conclusions, as follows:

27   Based on the available information, Mr Williams can be diagnosed with Substance Use Disorder [stimulants; amphetamines]. This is based on consideration of his narrative history at interview, and […] collateral material […]. Essentially, there is information suggesting sustained use of amphetamines in the time leading up to the alleged offending.

28   The issue of whether he has a sustained major mental illness such as schizophrenia is less clear. Obviously, his presentation on mental state examination noted above might suggest sustained mental disorder, with a perplexed and blunted affect, and impaired communication potentially consistent with a sustained psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia. Details were not forthcoming, and as noted above, he generally presented as an unreliable historian. It is likely that sustained use of substances, particularly methamphetamine, has caused some level of sustained cognitive impairment.

29   I was not confident that all aspects of his presentation were genuine, and some deliberate embellishment or exaggeration could not be excluded, in my opinion. However, the possibility of him having a genuine major mental illness exacerbated by/associated with methamphetamine use also could not be excluded. In short, he requires further longitudinal assessment by forensic clinicians in a controlled environment, to clarify diagnostic issues.

18. With respect to the subparagraphs of s 36(1) of the Act Dr Martin formed the following opinions (with identifiers inserted in square brackets to indicate correspondence with the relevant part of the section):

30   Based on this current presentation, his responses appear to be that [a] he did not understand the nature of the charges. [b] He was able to state that he would plead not guilty but appeared to have difficulty further elaborating or explaining, and he could not give adequate explanations of potential defences that might be available to him, such as the mental health impairment defence or substantial impairment. Generally, discussion around the legal issues was vexed and [c] he gave unsatisfactory, inadequate responses around issues such as right of challenge, [d] evidentiary issues, and the general purpose of court as a fact-finding inquiry to test criminal allegations. He appeared to have very limited understanding of the roles of officers of the court. Given his presentation and response style, in my view, the court would not be satisfied [g] that he had an adequate capacity to make a defence or answer to the charge, [h] give adequate instructions, or a version of facts to his legal representative and the court if necessary, and further [i] he appeared to lack the capacity to decide what defence he would rely on and make that decision known to his legal representative and the court. [e] It is likely that he would have impaired capacity to follow proceedings in a meaningful manner.

19. In effect, Dr Martin found that, by reason of a mental health impairment, the accused is not able to do nearly any of the things that would be required of him in order to conduct his defence. The doctor’s overall conclusion was given in these terms:

In short, in my view, as he presents, the court will find him unfit to plead and stand trial at this time. In this regard, I agree with Dr Ellis’ findings.

20. Dr Martin provided a supplementary report on 18 February 2025. Having regard to Dr Ellis' experience of attempting to interview the accused a second time, Dr Martin did not attempt to do so. He reviewed some video recordings of the accused's behaviour in June 2023 shortly before and after his arrest on the present charge. Dr Martin reviewed Justice Health records which referred to the accused's distractibility, observed on various occasions, and he reviewed the information concerning his fighting in custody. In this second report the doctor expressed a more firm opinion concerning a mental health impairment, in these terms:

8   On reflection, given his apparent presentation as described by Dr Ellis, in my opinion it appears highly likely that Mr Williams has ongoing mental health and/or cognitive impairment that is poorly controlled in his current environment. Schizophrenia is a reasonable clinical consideration, and in my view certainly cannot be excluded, despite the thrust of Justice Health clinical assessments seeming to suggest that he does not present with enduring major mental illness, but that his presentation is more in the context of substance use disorder.

9   While I note some clinical entries where Mr Williams denies hearing voices, for instance, this does not mean that he is not experiencing hallucinations, and might rather reflect his unreliability as a historian associated with underlying psychosis. There is obvious discrepancy between the opinions of clinicians that have assessed him, where essentially Mr Williams’ lawyers, Dr Ellis and I have raised concerns at his presentation impacting on fitness, whereas Justice Health staff have not been concerned that he is presenting with enduring mental illness, but rather that his history and presentation are explained by substance use.

10   With regard to the findings of Dr Baker, I respectfully disagree that there is “nil evidence of major mental illness”; clearly there is some information at least raising this as a possibility, noting his appearance, affect, demeanour, guardedness, poor cooperation, inconsistent reporting of his internal mental state and involvement in multiple fights, all of which are not inconsistent with underlying paranoia. Ultimately, exact diagnosis however may be academic at this point, as the salient issue is fitness.

21. In this supplementary review, current to the present date, Dr Martin expressed the opinion that it is shown that the applicant is not fit to stand trial. He elaborated that conclusion in paragraph 12 of his report:

12   In my opinion, Mr Williams’ fitness to plead and stand trial is highly likely to be significantly impaired. His legal matter is extremely serious, and on the basis of the available information and recent interactions there has to be serious doubt at his capacity to plead, exercise his right of challenge, consider legal advice, give a version of events, make a defence to the charge, consider evidence or follow proceedings meaningfully. On the information available, in my view Mr Williams will be found unfit by the Court. I agreed generally with the findings of Dr Ellis, and have not changed my opinion as previously expressed on the basis of the further material provided. In short, in my respectful opinion to the Court, the most appropriate course of action would be for his matter to be put before the Mental Health Review Tribunal and where Mr Williams can be placed in an appropriate clinical area for assertive monitoring and management, and where fitness to plead can be assessed in an ongoing manner, potentially with attempted fitness restoration.

Ms Munro – present unfitness

22. Ms Munro was the solicitor for the accused from July 2023 to November 2024. During that period she spoke with the accused face-to-face, by telephone and by audio visual link. There were a total of approximately 20 contacts. On some occasions counsel who was then instructed to advise and represent the accused was also present.

23. Ms Munro deposed to the following experience of her first face-to-face attendance on the accused, with counsel, and her follow up consultations:

Mr Williams would vacantly stare at us, look behind us constantly as though there was someone or something there and ask “What did you say?” when no one had spoken. Mr Williams, during this visit, was able to provide details about his background, which he since has not been able to recall, such as the number of children he has and names of relatives. During conferences with Mr Williams I found myself having to explain who I am, despite having met with and spoken with Mr Williams many times. I would continually have to explain legal concepts to Mr Williams and did not have confidence that he understood legal concepts.

The accused may become fit to be tried within 12 months

24. Both of the expert psychiatrists who have been retained specifically for the purposes of informing this inquiry have expressed views on the question of whether the accused will or may become fit to be tried for the offence within the next 12 months. They have expressed their conclusions on that matter for the purpose of assisting me to make a finding under s 47 of the Act.

25. Dr Martin said this in his report of 16 September 2024:

[There] is uncertainty as to whether his capacity to plead or stand trial might change over the next 12 months. And he requires further longitudinal assessment and management in a more appropriate setting, such as at the MRRC, Long Bay Hospital or the Forensic Hospital in order to clarify a diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.

26. In Dr Martin's email to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 18 February 2025 he responded to a question as to how long after proper treatment is commenced it would be appropriate to assess the accused for antisocial personality disorder and/or cognitive deficits that may also impact his fitness. Dr Martin's reply was as follows:

Best estimate is that he should be observed for at least 2-3 months where he can be prescribed appropriate medication in a controlled setting, to have an idea as to whether he is responding to medication at all and to allow for cognitive testing. In reality, it might take a lot longer as his problems appear chronic and complex.

27. Dr Ellis expressed the following view about the likely position over the next 12 months, in the final paragraph of his report dated 5 June 2024:

Overall it is the opinion that he does not meet the elements of the test for fitness in the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020. As he is not currently on any treatment for schizophrenia, this lack of fitness may be reversed with effective antipsychotic treatment. If he were to be compliant with and respond to antipsychotic medication then a re-evaluation of his fitness should be undertaken. It is more likely than not that with effective treatment his fitness would improve to a point where he could participate in his trial.

28. That forecast about possible change over the next 12 months was confirmed and elaborated in Dr Ellis’ report of 17 February 2025 as follows:

I agree with Dr Martin that the only way he would likely be found fit to be tried would be after admission to a mental health facility and appropriate treatment. His lack of cooperativeness at this point would necessitate this to be under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (section 86 transfer). It would be my view that his repeated fights in custody indicate a serious risk to self and others. It is my view that he has ongoing delusions and hallucinations (and at minimum repeated bizarre behaviour that could represent these symptoms). As he has no insight, minimising and denying symptoms there is no less restrictive environment, and treatment could not be provided in custody. This of course would require two medical officers, one of which is a psychiatrist to agree with my and Dr Martin’s evaluation to enact the transfer process. Most persons found unfit with conditions such as schizophrenia are found fit within twelve months with treatment. If he also has a cognitive impairment, then his potential to improve is less and in this case it may be that he would continue to be found unfit, or not improve within the required 12 months.

29. Dr Ellis also responded to the question of how long in treatment under the conditions recommended it might take before a clearer position would emerge. In his email of 18 February 2025 Dr Ellis said this:

I would estimate it is likely (on balance of probabilities) to be clear at six months after commencing antipsychotic treatment, if there are residual issues impacting fitness.

Conclusions

30. On the basis of this evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is, at present, not fit to be tried on the charge of murder by reason of a mental health impairment, namely schizophrenia. Neither party required either of the psychiatric experts to give oral evidence and there has been no challenge to the opinions expressed in their reports

31. I am satisfied that the accused is not able to do any of the things listed in paragraph 36(1) of the Act, with the possible exception of "(b) plead to the charge". Even in that respect, he is not able to understand the possibility or suitability of pleading the mental illness defence.

32. In forming this view I have considered the matters set out in s 44(5), including whether trial processes could be modified to accommodate such impairment as the accused exhibits, the likely length and complexity of the trial and whether he would be represented. Having factored those considerations into the assessment of the matter I am comfortably satisfied that he is not fit to be tried according to the criteria stipulated in the Act.

33. I am also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused may become fit to be tried for the offence during the next 12 months.

Orders

34. For the above reasons the following orders will be entered:

1. Pursuant to s 49(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) the accused, Wayne Williams, is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

2. Pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act the accused is remanded in custody.

3. The reports of Dr Ellis and Dr Martin are to be forwarded to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and to Justice Health.

**********

Decision last updated: 21 February 2025