Regina v Cristian Emil Simionescu

[2006] NSWSC 576

CITATION:	REGINA v Cristian Emil SIMIONESCU [2006] NSWSC 576
HEARING DATE(S):	5 June 2006, 6 June 2006
JUDGMENT DATE :	14 June 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Hidden J
DECISION:	Accused found not guilty by reason of mental illness.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW: murder - trial by judge alone - accused killed his father - mental illness the only issue
LEGISLATION CITED:	Mental Health (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1990 Mental Health Act 1990
CASES CITED:	The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
PARTIES:	REGINA (Crown) Cristian Emil SIMIONESCU (accused)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2005/1720
COUNSEL:	Ms Wendy Robinson QC (Crown) Mr Richard Button SC (accused)
SOLICITORS:	S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions S E O'Connor - Solicitor for Legal Aid

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Hidden J

Wednesday 14 June 2006

2005/1720 REGINA v Cristian Emil SIMIONESCU

JUDGMENT – Reasons for verdict

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused, Cristian Simionescu, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of his father, Emil Simionescu. The deceased met his death in the early evening of 23 June 2004 in the home unit at Roselands where he lived with his wife and his adult daughter. The accused, now aged twenty-seven, was living at the time in a unit at Wiley Park. The deceased died from multiple stab wounds to the chest. He had been decapitated and his head had been placed in a plastic bag on the roof of the garage of the premises. From forensic pathological evidence it appears that the decapitation was after the fatal blows were struck. There were an incised wound and a blunt force wound to his head consistent with having been inflicted before death. There were also a number of post mortem cuts and stab wounds to the eyes, nose and mouth, suggestive of mutilation.

2 There is a strong circumstantial case that the perpetrator was the accused, and the evidence admits of no other conclusion than that he inflicted the fatal wounds with the intention of killing his father. Thus, the elements of murder are established beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the contrary has not been suggested by Mr Button SC, representing the accused. The only issue is whether he was mentally ill, as the law uses that expression in this context, at the relevant time.

3 On that issue the accused bears the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Adapting the language of the well-known M’Naghten Rules to the present case, the issue is whether, at the time of the killing, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. In the present day, lawyers in this country look to the exposition of that principle by Sir Owen Dixon, in his summing up to the jury in The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182. In relation to Mr Porter, his Honour explained the question in this way (at 189 – 90):

If through the 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. What is meant by “wrong”? What is meant by wrong is wrong having regard to the everyday standards of reasonable people.

4 There is more than enough evidence here to establish mental illness in that sense. Indeed, for that reason, senior counsel for the Crown and the accused chose not to address me at the close of the evidence.

5 I received in evidence a large volume of material comprising the Crown brief. Much of that is evidence pointing to the accused as his father’s killer, a matter which, as I have said, is not in dispute. However, some of the statements in it bear upon the accused’s mental state and his background of mental disturbance. Foremost among these is a lengthy statement of his mother, Mrs Gheorghita (Gina) Simionescu. Also in the brief are copies of some letters the accused wrote to his mother after being taken into custody. There is material relating to his contact in recent years with Rozelle Hospital and Canterbury Hospital and, since his incarceration, with Justice Health. Finally, I have the reports of two experienced and respected forensic psychiatrists, Dr Bruce Westmore and Dr Stephen Allnutt. Dr Westmore had provided reports to the accused’s legal representatives, while Dr Allnutt was engaged by the Crown. Both of those experts also gave oral evidence.

6 There is no need to summarise this material at any length. The accused’s only sibling is his younger sister. The family migrated to Australia from Romania between 1989 and 1990. Mrs Simionescu’s statement records a history of behavioural problems on the part of the accused from 1994, but from 1998 he began to exhibit behaviour of a bizarre, delusional and sometimes aggressive kind. He expressed paranoid thoughts and developed a pre-occupation with weapons, particularly knives and other cutting instruments, presumably perceived to be necessary for his protection.

7 On occasions Mrs Simionescu had to call the police to attend their home because of his conduct. There were a number of attendances for psychiatric examination at Canterbury Hospital and at Rozelle Hospital, and sometimes he was admitted as an involuntary patient. Over this same period he developed a pattern of drug abuse, and at different times he was diagnosed as suffering from a drug induced psychosis or from schizophrenia. He was prescribed anti-psychotic medication, which was effective at times, but he could not be relied upon to take it consistently.

8 Not surprisingly, his relationship with his family was strained by these developments, and by the time of the killing they were estranged. For a long time his relationship with his father had been poor, as his father had expressed his disapproval of his aberrant behaviour and his drug abuse. As I have said, at the time of the killing he was not living in the family home. This is not to say that he did not attempt to maintain contact with the family, but such contact as there was was marred by abuse and harassment on his part.

9 He was in touch with his mother on the day of the killing, 23 June 2004, and the preceding few days. Indeed, he spent the night of 21 June at the family home. Mrs Simionescu recounted her observations of him over that period in some detail in her statement. It is sufficient to say that she observed him to be very agitated and stressed. On 21 June he told her that he wanted to be admitted to Rozelle Hospital for some “time out.” Unfortunately, although she encouraged him to take that course and, indeed, insisted that he do so, he did not. Whether this tragedy might have been averted if he had we will never know.

10 After his arrest he continued to exhibit psychotic symptoms, and he has been treated from time to time while in custody.

11 Dr Westmore saw the accused in custody in October 2004, and December 2005. Dr Allnutt examined him in April 2006. Both doctors diagnosed him as suffering from schizophrenia, complicated by long-term substance abuse. However, a difficulty they faced in arriving at a conclusion about the forensic issue of mental illness was that the accused was unwilling or unable to describe to them his actions or his mental state at the time of the killing. Both accepted that he may have been unable to do so because of a well recognised psychological response to such a horrific event.

12 That said, he did describe to Dr Westmore having heard voices in the period leading up to the killing which told him that his parents intended to hospitalise him. Taking into account the history of his mental illness over the years and the nature of the killing itself, Dr Westmore expressed the opinion in a report that his illness deprived him of “his capacity to make reasonable and rational judgments” about his father and “to appreciate the wrongness of his behaviour.”

13 The accused also described to Dr Allnutt his hearing voices over the days leading up to the offence, but he said that the voices told him that his parents intended to kill him so that they could sell his bodily organs. Significantly, in a letter to his mother after he was taken into custody, but long before he saw Dr Allnutt, he effectively accused her of planning to profit from the sale of his organs, saying that he did not “want to be a donor.” The same appears in other documents written by him, and from the clinical notes held by Justice Health it appears that in 2004 he was expressing bizarre thoughts about the sale of organs, albeit in a different context.

14 The accused told Dr Allnutt that he had never had a good relationship with his father and, from what he said, it appeared to the doctor that he had some sense that the killing was wrong. He said that “he did not feel justified in doing what he had done.” This led Dr Allnutt to examine the question of mental illness at the relevant time with some care. Nevertheless, he concluded in his report that the accused “could be found to meet the Porter test, being limited in his capacity to contemplate the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure.” He added that “his delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations could have overwhelmed his capacity for knowledge of wrongfulness at the time, with recovery after the offence causing a recall bias about his knowledge of wrongfulness at the time.” He wrote that his opinion “would fall on the side of the mental illness defence based on current information.”

15 As I have said, both doctors gave oral evidence. Dr Allnutt, who gave evidence first, adhered to the views he had expressed in his report. He explained that his conclusion was unaffected by the undoubted fact that the accused harboured feelings of resentment against his father because of their relationship over the years, expressing the view that any rational basis for anger directed at his father was overtaken by his psychosis.

16 On the whole of the material before me, I would draw the inference that the killing was the product of mental illness. The accused suffered from schizophrenia of long-standing and, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that he killed his father because of delusional beliefs produced by that illness. I am fortified in that view by the nature of the killing. Such resentment as the accused may have felt for his father because of their poor relationship could not possibly explain the unbridled savagery of his attack. Clearly, his ability to judge the wrongfulness of his actions by community standards was compromised in such a way as to meet the test expressed by Sir Owen Dixon in Porter. I might add that, in letters to his mother from prison, he conveyed a cursory apology for what he had done but expressed himself in such a way as to demonstrate that he had no insight into the enormity of his conduct.

17 He is entitled to the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. As a result, he will become a forensic patient for the purpose of the Mental Health Act and will be subject to the procedures set out in chapter 5 of that Act. He will not be able to be released into the community except by order of the Governor, on the recommendation of the Mental Health Review Tribunal: s84 of the Act. The Tribunal may not recommend his release unless it is satisfied that his safety or the safety of any member of the public would not thereby be seriously endangered: s82(4).

18 These reasons have been relatively brief because, as I have said, the resolution of the only issue in the case is clear. Despite their brevity, I do not fail to recognise that Mrs Simionescu and her daughter have lost a loved one in distressing, indeed gruesome, circumstances. To them, and to all who have been affected by the tragic death of Mr Simionescu, I express my sympathy.

19 I find the accused not guilty by reason of mental illness. It is necessary to make an order for his disposition under s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act and I shall consult the parties about the terms of that order.

**********