R v Yeon (No 2) - [2024] NSWSC 1389

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yeon (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1389
Hearing dates: 21 October 2023
Date of orders: 01 November 2024
Decision date: 01 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1)   In respect of count 1, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.
(2) In respect of the charge on the certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.
(3)   Pursuant to s 61(2) and s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Jiman Yeon is to be detained in his present place of custody, or at such other place as is lawfully determined, until such time as he is released by due process of law.
(4) Pursuant to s 67 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Jiman Yeon is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
The Court directs that:
(1)   The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these verdicts and orders within 7 days.
(2)   The Registrar of the Court is to notify Justice Health of these verdicts and orders and provide a copy of the judgment and orders together with each of the reports of Dr Ellis and Dr O’Dea to Justice Health within 7 days.

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – defence of mental health impairment – accused unfit to stand trial – whether accused had a mental health impairment at time of carrying out the act – whether the mental health impairment had the effect that accused did not know the nature and quality of the act and that the act was wrong – requirements of s 28(1) and (2) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) met – defence of mental health impairment made out

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4(2), 28(1) and (2), 36, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58(1), 59(1)

Cases Cited:
Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Yeon [2024] NSWSC 360
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jiman Yeon (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Patch (Crown)
M Avenell SC with A Burkitt (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00393777
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Introduction

The accused, Mr Jiman Yeon, has been charged on indictment with one count of murdering Lindai Parker between 26 and 30 December 2022 at Greendale in New South Wales. In addition, there is also a…

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 Yeon (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Yeon (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1389
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1389
Decision Date: 01 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yeon (No 2) involved the defendant, Yeon, who was charged with a criminal offence and subsequently raised a defence of mental health impairment. The case was heard in a NSW court, where the central issue was whether Yeon was fit to stand trial and if his mental health condition met the criteria for a defence of mental health impairment under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine whether Yeon had a mental health impairment at the time of the alleged offence, and if so, whether this impairment resulted in him being unaware of the nature and quality of his act and that it was wrong. This determination hinged on interpreting and applying sections 28(1) and (2) of the Act.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding Yeon’s mental health status and whether it met the statutory requirements for the defence of mental health impairment. It considered medical reports and expert testimonies to assess if Yeon's condition rendered him unfit to stand trial. The court had to scrutinise the precise nature of Yeon’s mental health impairment, the extent of its impact on his cognitive functions, and whether this impairment fulfilled the legal criteria as outlined in the Act. This included understanding if Yeon's impairment negated his ability to comprehend the wrongfulness of his actions or the nature and quality of the act itself.

Upon thorough examination, the court found that Yeon did indeed suffer from a mental health impairment at the time of the offence. This impairment was of such a degree that it satisfied the conditions stipulated under sections 28(1) and (2) of the Act. Consequently, the court concluded that Yeon was not fit to stand trial. The court determined that Yeon’s mental health impairment had effectively impaired his understanding of the nature and quality of his actions and their wrongfulness, thus successfully establishing the defence of mental health impairment. As a result, the court acquitted Yeon on the basis of this defence.

Orders