R v Woodroffe-Hill

[2008] NSWSC 221

CITATION:	R v Woodroffe-Hill [2008] NSWSC 221 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	14/03/08, 17/03/08
JUDGMENT DATE :	17 March 2008
JUDGMENT OF:	Barr J at 1
DECISION:	The accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness. He is to be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - accused found not guilty on the grounds of mental illness.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Mental Health Act 1990
CATEGORY:	Sentence
CASES CITED:	R v McNaghten (1843)
PARTIES:	Regina Matthew James Woodroffe-Hill
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2007/4907
COUNSEL:	C McPherson (Crown) C Bruce (Defence)
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director od Public Prosecutions (Crown) Liston and Clifton (Defence)

GRAHAM BARR J

MONDAY 17 MARCH

2007 / 4907
REGINA V MATTHEW JAMES WOODROFFE-HILL

1 HIS HONOUR : The accused, Matthew James Woodroffe-Hill, stands charged with the murder on 13 January 2007 at Armidale of Mark Hutchinson. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge by reason of mental illness.

2 At the commencement of the trial the Court received evidence of the election by the accused for trial by judge alone, dated 11 March 2008 and of the Crown’s consent dated 12 March 2008. Together those documents constitute exhibit A. Between the time of the events giving rise to the charge and the commencement of this trial the accused has been held in custody under the supervision of psychiatrists, who have treated him. I shall make further reference to the psychiatric evidence, but it suffices for present purposes for me to say that I am satisfied on the evidence of Dr Delaforce that the accused had the necessary mental capacity to make his election.

3 The burden of proving that he is not guilty by reason of mental illness lies on the accused. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities . The statement of the test for a defence of mental illness was propounded as long ago as 1843 in R v McNaghten . The question to be answered was whether the accused at the time the offence was committed was suffering from a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, so as not to know the quality and nature of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. The law has been amplified in Australia in the last century and the test may be said to be whether the accused was able to appreciate the wrongness of the act that he was doing. If through disordered condition of the mind he could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure it may be said that he could not know that what he was doing was wrong. It may also be said that if a disease of the mind so governs the faculties that it is impossible to reason with some moderate degree of calmness about the moral quality of an act, the actor is prevented from knowing that what he does is wrong.

4 At all material times the accused lived with his wife and their two children on a property at Tenterfield. The deceased, who was 82 years of age at the time of his death, resided in Armidale. The accused was the step-grandson of the deceased. The accused was born on 27 April 1966 and was 40 years old at the time of the events giving rise to the charge. He had a minor and unremarkable medical history, with no report of mental illness. He had a minor criminal history with no report of violent acts. By early 2006 he had been interested for some time in the writings of the person who called himself Nostradamus and claimed to be a seer. A statement put before the Court suggests that the accused was able to read those writings in their original medieval French. From about March 2006 onwards, as a result of his reading those writings, the accused formed the belief the belief that a number of catastrophic events were going to occur. He believed that a particular quatrain identified him as “the son of the west”, a person born in the western world and destined to have a significant impact on future world events. He told his wife about Las Palmas, in the Canary Islands. He believed that the structure of the Canary Islands could be cross-referenced to passages in the Bible, in the Koran and in Nostradamus’ writings and other religious writings. He believed that the collapse of Las Palmas would bring an end to the Western World. He was concerned that an act of man might bring about this destruction sooner than it would occur if it were an act of God. As a result of these and other beliefs, he decided to make enquiries of certain Muslims. He visited mosques in Brisbane and Sydney to deliver the message of Las Palmas. During these visits the accused’s wife and children were with him. During the visits to the mosque in Sydney the accused became suspicious of a number of who, he believed, were going to do something bad. One such person was a man who had been sunburnt while another had reportedly been fishing but had not told the accused if he had caught anything. The family were provided with accommodation on the first night of their stay but spent their second night in the mosque car park. After the second night the family left Sydney to return to Tenterfield but on the way the accused stopped at a furniture shop and asked the proprietor to telephone the Counter Terrorism Unit to report the sunburnt man. He took a somewhat circuitous route home because he believed that they were being followed. When he arrived home he visited a neighbour and told him about an imaginary creature which was going to visit his, the accused’s, property. The neighbour became concerned for the family’s safety and drove with the accused to his property in order to allay his fears. Soon afterwards the accused and his family left their home again and drove along the New England Highway. They stopped in a particular place and the accused was heard by his wife speaking to voices coming from the car radio. They continued their rambling journey and eventually arrived in Armidale e arly on 12 January 2007. They looked for the deceased’s house but could not remember exactly where it was and were unable to find it. They slept in some fashion in the car. When the accused awoke he was feeling a pain in an eye which had been injured when he was a small boy and believed that the one who had previously caused him the injury could now see everything that he, the accused, was seeing. He thought that that person could follow the family and know what they were doing. The accused was so concerned that he told his wife and children to hide near a water tower while he remained in the car. The accused’s wife sought assistance from a member of the public. Eventually the family got into the car and the accused drove them around Armidale. This time they found the deceased’s house and went inside. The deceased was there and invited them to take some refreshment. They spoke affably for a while until the accused left, intending to attend an ophthalmologist’s rooms to obtain treatment for the injured eye. He did so at about eight thirty in the morning. The receptionist told him that the ophthalmologist was absent and that he should go the hospital instead. The accused got back into the car and told his wife that they were leaving Armidale. Exhausted, she fell asleep. She did not wake until the car was well on the way back to Tenterfield. In the meantime the accused returned to the deceased’s house and attacked him with a bayonet. He inflicted several serious stab wounds in the torso and then decapitated the body. The accused drove to Tenterfield, where he and his wife heard about a festival at Bald Rock National Park. They decided to attend the festival and the accused drove the family there. They parked the vehicle and walked into the bush. The accused was convinced that they had been bugged, so he directed them to remove their clothing and he removed his. He and his family wandered naked for three or four days in the Bald Rock National Park. Eventually a kind member of the public provided them with food and clothing and enabled them to clean themselves up and then drove them to their property at Tenterfield.

5 The body of the deceased was discovered and the police were called. They first spoke to the accused on 16 January 2007 and told him of the deceased’s death. He responded by speaking of the deceased’s courage. He appeared sad to hear of the deceased’s death. He said that he had not seen him for about two years. Shortly after this conversation the accused took his family away from the district, believing that the police officers were from the CIA or the FBI or some other kind of intelligence agency. On 24 January 2007 the accused and his family visited a friend and he spoke of his delusional fears for the family’s safety, experienced on a recent visit to Armidale. He said that he had had a “really nice visit” upon the deceased. On 4 February 2007 the accused telephoned his father, who asked him whether he had killed the deceased. The accused admitted that he had done so but then denied having done so, saying “no, but I was responsible for it”. On 28 February 2007 a friend of the accused returned to his home to find that the accused and his family had occupied his house. The accused explained that he had found somewhere to stay in the bush as he needed to “disappear off the radar”. He said that that was because he had published writings on the internet. The family stayed there for a few days. On 15 March 2007 the accused and his family were found by the police camping in the Boonoo Boonoo National Park. The accused was detained under an order issued under the Mental Health Act 1990 and taken to Tenterfield Police Station. While awaiting the arrival of a doctor the accused spoke to the police and said “I don’t know if I killed him or not. I have had a few blackouts”. He told the police that a fatwa had been issued against him. He was admitted as an involuntary patient to the Banksia Mental Health Facility at Tamworth Hospital. He later told his wife and parents that he had killed the deceased with one stab of a bayonet to the heart. That statement was consistent with findings made upon a post mortem examination.

6 The evidence satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased, intending to kill him.

7 During the preparation of this matter for trial those advising the accused requested that he attend upon a consulting psychiatrist, Dr Bruce Westmore, so that he could furnish a report for possible use at the trial. The accused complied and Dr Westmore reported. The report was served on the Crown, who requested that the accused attend upon a psychiatrist of its nomination for the preparation of a report to the Crown. Accordingly, the accused attended upon Dr Delaforce, forensic psychiatrist and he, too, provided a report. I have read the two reports. They are comprehensive. Each psychiatrist was provided with a large number of documents, including a statement of the facts of the case, copies of witnesses’ statements, copies of transcripts of things said by the accused and other relevant documents. Each psychiatrist also interviewed and questioned the accused for a considerable time.

8 The accused told Dr Westmore that he was working on translations of Nostradamus and noticed that one of the verses directly pinpointed his house. It also pinpointed a volcano on the other side of the world, so he became worried that he was part of the prophecy. He spent three days in crisis, then put the work away for about six months. He had done his best to ignore the prophecies but they kept nagging at him. Around Christmas 2006 he decided he had to act on what he had found. He said that one volcano hung onto the side of another and threatened to pour five hundred billion tonnes of rock into the ocean. That would produce a tsunami. The prophecies had indicated that a man with a curly black beard, whom the accused thought must be a Muslim, would be responsible for the calamity. That was why he travelled to the mosques to speak to someone there. He told Dr Westmore also of interaction he had with the radio and the television. He relayed to Dr Westmore a great many more details, but it is not necessary to repeat them. Dr Westmore formed the opinion the accused developed an acute paranoid psychosis, probably an acute paranoid schizophrenic illness. As a result of his illness he started to behave in a bizarre and paranoid fashion. He developed paranoid delusional beliefs and suffered ideas of reference from the television and radio. He may have had other psychotic symptoms as well, such as auditory perceptual disturbances. His subsequent behaviour, Dr Westmore said, reflected his paranoid delusional beliefs. Tragically, the deceased became incorporated into the accused’s delusional belief system and as consequence the accused killed him in the belief that the deceased intended to harm him and his family.

9 Dr Westmore is of the opinion that the acute paranoid schizophrenic illness from which the accused was suffering when he killed the deceased was a disease of the mind which would have totally deprived him of his capacity to know that he ought not to do the act causing death. He was “delusionally driven” in his actions towards the deceased, believing that he intended to harm him and his family. So he came in his delusion to kill a man he loved and to whom he had gone for assistance.

10 In his report of 7 March 2008 Dr Delaforce agrees. After a detailed treatment of the evidence, including references to statements of witnesses which confirm, by descriptions of what the accused said and how he appeared, that he was suffering from a serious psychotic illness. The accused told Dr Delaforce that he knew what he was doing when he stabbed and decapitated the deceased and that he did so because he believed that the deceased was involved as a persecutor in all the strange things that had been happening to him since March 2006. He concluded that the deceased “had to be destroyed for it to stop”, and that meant that he would have to be killed.

11 Dr Delaforce diagnosed schizophrenia, which began in March 2006 and was present on 12 January 2007 when the accused did the act which caused the death of the deceased. Like Dr Westmore, Dr Delaforce believes that the unfortunate contact with the deceased on 12 January 2007 resulted in his being incorporated into the accused’s delusional system.

12 So both psychiatrists agree that the accused has the defence of not guilty by reason of mental illness available to him. I accept their medical diagnosis and their statements as to the availability of the defence of mental illness. The accused has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that although, when he killed his step-grandfather, he knew what he was doing, he did not know that it was wrong to do so.

13 It is necessary to say a number of other things. The events giving rise to this charge have been distressing and perplexing for the family of Mr Hutchinson and the accused and others who have been touched by these events. The sympathy of the Court goes out to all those who have been affected.

14 The statute which governs cases like this requires me to make an order that the accused be detained in such place and in such manner as the Court thinks fit until released by due process of law. In practice that will mean that the accused will be referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1990. A strict statutory regime will then come into effect.

15 The Mental Health Review Tribunal is a body of professional experts. Within 14 days after the verdict the Tribunal will commence a review of the case of the accused. When it has done its review the Tribunal will make a recommendation to the Minister for Health. That recommendation may be either unconditional or subject to conditions as to the manner in which the accused should be detained, cared for or treated. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the safety of the accused or any member of the public would not be seriously endangered by his release, it may make a recommendation as to his release. If it makes such a recommendation that will be considered by the Department of Health which in turn will advise the Governor-in-Council. The Governor-in-Council will then, in accordance with the recommendation and advice, either make an order for the detention of the accused or for his release, conditional or unconditional. The Governor-in-Council may only make an order for release where the Tribunal itself has recommended release. Assuming that no recommendation for release is made after the first hearing the Mental Health Review Tribunal can at any later time, and must at least once every six months, review the case of the accused.

16 After hearing the evidence at any later review, it must make a recommendation to the Minister for Health as to the continued detention, care or treatment of the accused or as to his release, conditional or unconditional. The Tribunal is not free at any such review to make a recommendation for release unless it is satisfied that the safety of the accused or any member of the public would not be seriously endangered by his release. Again following such a review and recommendation the matter goes to the Department of Health and the Minister advises the Governor-in-Council. Any recommendation so advised can be carried into effect only by order of the Governor-in-Council.

17 If the accused were at any time released back into the public on conditions and there were a breach of any of those conditions, the Governor-in-Council might order that the accused be apprehended and detained. Such an order would follow by reason of the practical consideration that if a person were released, the Department of Health would maintain a watch over his case with the assistance of a Community Health Centre, a private psychiatrist, or one of the other public facilities available. In other words, if a person is released conditionally back into the community, then the Department maintains a watch over him and a breach of any condition will lead to his being apprehended and detained once again.

18 The conditions which could be applied include matters such as living in a particular place, taking particular medication and so on, to ensure that the accused was properly cared for. Other than pursuant to any such release, the accused would remain, as I have said previously, in strict custody within one of the psychiatric institutions catering for forensic patients.

19 The only manner in which a person ceases to be a forensic patient for the purposes of these provisions is when he is unconditionally released by the Governor-in-Council, or is released upon conditions which include a condition as to the time that his release should become unconditional. If that time expires, then his release becomes unconditional and he ceases to be a forensic patient. However, as I have previously explained, the accused will never be released unless the Mental Health Review Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence available to it that his safety and the safety of any member of the public will not thereby be seriously endangered.

20 I find that the accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness. I order that he be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.


**********

18/03/2008 - Deleted repeated sentences in para - Paragraph(s) 5