Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilson (No 6)

R v Wilson (No 6)

Case [2019] NSWSC 529 10 May 2019

Mental Health

Judicial Review

Legitimate Expectation

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 Wilson (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 529
Hearing dates: 30 April 2019 and 7 May 2019
Date of orders: 10 May 2019
Decision date: 10 May 2019
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
(1) Ms Wilson’s bail is revoked.
(2) Ms Wilson be detained in the locked ward at Shellharbour Hospital where she is presently admitted.
Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH — Where person charged unfit to stand trial — Where person found guilty of charges on limited evidence in special hearing and limiting term nominated — Where person found to suffer from a mental illness for which treatment is not available in a mental health facility — Where the Court must order a person “be detained in a place other than a mental health facility” — Whether person required to be detained in a correctional facility — Whether person can be detained in locked aged care facility or medical ward — Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 27
WORDS AND PHRASES — “detained”, “a place other than a mental health facility” — Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 27
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; [1981] HCA 26
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Khoury (2014) 306 ALR 86; [2014] NSWCA 15
R v Wilson [2015] NSWSC 1538
R v Wilson (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1730
R v Wilson (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 1077
State of New South Wales v Boatswain [2014] NSWSC 1446
State of New South Wales v TD [2013] NSWCA 32
State of New South Wales v Windle (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 727
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Pearl Marie Wilson
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
J Manuell SC with P Pearsall (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/88509 and 2013/44091
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 12 February 2013 Jason Shepstone died after Ms Wilson inflicted serious burns when she poured boiling water over him. In October 2015, I found that she was unfit to be tried for his murder, she then suffering considerable ill health and having been diagnosed to be suffering moderate to severe depression, as well as a range of psychotic symptoms, PTSD, having cognitive impairment and her IQ falling in the range for mild intellectual disability: R v Wilson [2015] NSWSC 1538.
At a special hearing later conducted under the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act1990 (NSW) before me as a judge sitting alone, I found that…

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 Wilson (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 529
Case: [2019] NSWSC 529
Decision Date: 10 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Wilson (No 6), the defendant, Mr Wilson, was charged with serious criminal offences but was found unfit to stand trial due to his mental health condition. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with deciding on the appropriate detention for Mr Wilson, who had been found guilty in a special hearing with certain limitations on the evidence presented. The court had to determine whether Mr Wilson should be detained in a correctional facility, a locked aged care facility, or a medical ward, considering his mental health needs and the available treatment options.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to ascertain the meaning of the term "detained in a place other than a mental health facility" as per section 27 of the Act. It was necessary to determine the most appropriate and lawful place for Mr Wilson's detention given his mental health status and the lack of available treatment in a mental health facility. The court also had to balance the requirements of the Act with the need to ensure Mr Wilson's safety and the safety of others.

The court found that the term "detained in a place other than a mental health facility" did not necessarily mean a correctional facility. Instead, the court considered the overall intent of the Act, which is to provide appropriate care and treatment for individuals with mental illnesses who have been found guilty of serious criminal offences. Given that Mr Wilson required continuous medical supervision and treatment, the court ruled that he could be detained in a locked aged care facility or a medical ward, provided these settings could offer the necessary care. The court's decision aimed to ensure Mr Wilson received the appropriate treatment while also maintaining public safety.

The final orders of the court mandated that Mr Wilson be detained in a facility that could provide the required medical and psychiatric care. The court directed that he be placed in a locked aged care facility or a medical ward, which could meet his treatment needs and ensure his safety and the safety of others. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting the legislation in a way that aligns with both the individual's health requirements and the broader public interest.

Orders