The State of Western Australia v Dent [No 2] - [2023] WASC 261

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- DENT [No 2] [2023] WASC 261
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   28, 29 & 30 JUNE 2023
DELIVERED          :   17 JULY 2023
FILE NO/S:   INS 32 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
ROBERT GEORGE DENT
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Two counts of murder - Whether accused of unsound mind - Whether accused in a state of mental impairment - Whether accused deprived by mental impairment of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts that caused the death of the deceased in each case - Whether accused deprived by mental impairment of the capacity to control his actions in each case

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA)

Result:

Count 1 - Not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind
Count 2 - Not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	K Robinson
Respondent	:	C Astill & K King

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent	:	Kate King Legal

Cases referred to in decision:

Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34
Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Ramsey v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 642
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
State of Western Australia v Hone [2007] WASC 64
The State of Western Australia v Brown [2013] WASC 349
The State of Western Australia v Dent [2023] WASC 69
The State of Western Australia v Herbert [2017] WASC 101
The State of Western Australia v Jones [2018] WASC 395
The State of Western Australia v Marotta [2018] WASC 329
The State of Western Australia v Siddique [No 2] [2016] WASC 358
The State of Western Australia v Strabach [No 2] [2012] WASC 227
The State of Western Australia v Taylor [2021] WASC 470
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

The accused, Robert George Dent, is charged on an indictment dated 30 September 2022 with two counts of murder. The first charge alleges that on 21 September 2021 at Capel, the accused murdered Colin Richard Dent. The second charge alleges that on the same date and at the same place he murdered Bernice Rae Dent.
Colin Dent was the accused's 75 year old father. Bernice Dent was the accused's 74 year old mother.
On 13 March 2023, McGrath J ordered that the accused be tried by judge alone, pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (CPA).[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Dent [2023] WASC 69.
The trial took place before me from 28 to 30 June 2023. On each charge, the accused pleaded not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.
Pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), the accused admitted having killed each of his parents, and that at the time he did so, he intended to kill them or cause them life threatening bodily injury.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1.
The State adduced evidence of the circumstances of the accused prior to 21 September 2021, as well as evidence of the killings and their aftermath. There was no suggestion that the killings were anything other than unlawful; the sole issue was whether the accused was criminally responsible for them.
Both the State and the accused adduced expert psychiatric evidence as to the accused's state of mind at the time of the killings, going to the issue of whether the accused was deprived of any of the capacities set out in s 27 of the Criminal Code.
At the conclusion of the trial, both the accused and the State positively submitted that the evidence was such as to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the acts which killed his parents, and that he was deprived of the capacity to control his actions at the time.
For the reasons which follow, I find the accused not guilty of each of the charges of murder on account of unsoundness of mind.

Legal principles

Trial by judge alone

Pursuant to s 119(1) of the CPA, a judge sitting alone must apply, so far as practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury. The judgment of the judge in a trial by judge alone must include the principles of law that they have applied and the findings of fact upon which they have relied.[3]

General principles

[3] CPA s 120(2).

The accused is presumed to be innocent of the charges. The burden of proving his guilt is on the State. The standard of proof required to be achieved is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless I am satisfied that each element of the offence I am considering has been proved to that standard, the accused must be acquitted.
I must not speculate about matters not in evidence or look for theories that are not supported by the evidence. My verdict must be based only on the evidence.
If it is necessary to draw inferences as to essential facts from the evidence, I am not permitted to draw an inference adverse to the accused unless that inference is the only reasonable one open on the evidence.
In the present case, the forensic psychiatrists called by the State and the defence are largely in agreement in their opinions in this case. While I am not bound to accept and act upon expert evidence, I am not entitled to disregard it capriciously.[4]
[4] Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138 [124].
I am required to consider and decide each charge separately, on the evidence relevant to that charge. I must not reason automatically from a finding on one charge to the same finding on the other. My verdicts need not be the same on each charge. I must not draw any inference against the accused as a result of the fact that there are two charges and I must not engage in propensity reasoning in arriving at my conclusion.
The accused has had, at all times, a right to remain silent. He chose to speak to the police. He elected not to give evidence in this trial. That was his right. I must not draw any inference adverse to him for having exercised his right to remain silent in that manner.
The elements of the offence of murder are that the accused killed another person, that the killing was unlawful and that, at the time of the killing, the accused had an intention to kill that person or to cause an injury which endangered or was likely to endanger, life.
It is unlawful to kill any person unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law.[5] A person who causes the death of another, either directly or indirectly, is deemed to have killed that other person.[6]
[5] Criminal Code s 268.
[6] Criminal Code s 270.
If it is established that an unlawful killing has occurred, it is ordinarily the case that consideration will then be given to whether the State has proved the accused had the requisite intention for murder. However, where (as in this case) the accused pleads not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind, it is first necessary to consider whether the accused is criminally responsible for the killings, having regard to s 27 of the Criminal Code. It is only if the accused is found to be criminally responsible for the killings that the question of intention falls to be determined.[7]
[7] Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254.
In assessing the evidence and reaching a verdict, it is necessary to guard against any feelings of prejudice or sympathy. Such feelings must be put aside, and the issue of whether the accused's guilt has been proved must be determined dispassionately and objectively.

Insanity

Section 27 of the Criminal Code provides:
(1)A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission on account of unsoundness of mind if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental impairment as to deprive him of the capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.
(2)A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of subsection (1), is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist.
Every person is presumed to be of sound mind until the contrary is proved.[8] The accused has the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he is not criminally responsible pursuant to s 27.[9]
[8] Criminal Code s 26.
[9] R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182.
In the present case, the accused asserts that, at the time of the killings, he was in such a state of mental impairment as to be deprived of both the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts which caused the death of his parents, and the capacity to control his actions.
Section 1(1) of the Criminal Code defines 'mental impairment' as including 'mental illness'. 'Mental illness' is defined as meaning:
[a]n underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of short or long duration, and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary stimuli.
In The State of Western Australia v Herbert,[10] Jenkins J made the following observations, which I respectfully adopt:
[10] The State of Western Australia v Herbert [2017] WASC 101 [47] - [51].
An 'infirmity of the mind' is a weakness of the mind. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'pathological' to mean pertaining to or dealing with pathology. In turn, it defines 'pathology' to mean either the science or study of disease; that department of medical science, or of physiology, which treats of the causes and nature of diseases, or abnormal bodily affections or conditions. Thus, an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind is an underlying infirmity of the mind which is related to disease or an abnormal bodily condition.
The definition of 'mental illness' reflects some of the comments made by King CJ in Radford (1985) 20 A Crim R 388, 396 about the meaning of the expression 'disease of the mind' which is used in the common law of insanity. The then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia said:
(1) 'disease of the mind' is synonymous with 'mental illness';
(2) a temporary disorder or disturbance of an otherwise healthy mind caused by external factors is not properly regarded as a disease of the mind;
(3)major mental illness or psychoses such as schizophrenia are clearly diseases of the mind as are physical diseases, such as psychomotor epilepsy and arteriosclerosis, when they affect the soundness of the mental faculties;
(4) disease of the mind is to be distinguished from 'mere excitability of a normal man, passion, even stupidity, obtuseness, lack of self‑control and impulsiveness'; and
(5) in order to constitute insanity in the eyes of the law, the malfunction of the mental faculties called '"defect of reason" in the M'Naghten rules, must result from an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, be it of long or short duration and be it permanent or temporary, which can be properly termed mental illness, as distinct from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli'.
In R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30, the High Court generally approved of King CJ's comments even in the context of the then Criminal Code provisions.
When Falconer was decided, the Code s 27 was differently worded. Section 27 was amended and the definition of mental impairment was inserted after Falconer was delivered. The subsequent amendments to the Code are consistent with King CJ's statement of principles in Radford, although the Code definition of 'mental impairment' is broader than that of 'disease of the mind' which was considered by King CJ. Nevertheless, acute intoxication with alcohol and/or drugs is not a 'mental impairment'.
What is a mental illness is a question of law for the judge. Whether or not the facts disclose a state of mental illness is a question for the decider of fact.

Capacity to know that he ought not do the act

In Evans v The State of Western Australia,[11] McLure P considered the meaning of the capacity on the part of an accused to know that he ought not do the act, by reference to one of the common law requirements in insanity cases; that the accused be deprived of the ability to know that the act was wrong. Her Honour observed that there was 'no suggestion of any material distinction between the common law and s 27 on this point'.[12]
[11] Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34.
[12] Evans [31].
Having so found, McLure P referred to the statement of Dixon J in R v Porter as giving the 'clearest explanation of the principles' as to the capacity to know that the act was wrong:
Then I have used the expression 'know,' 'knew that what he was doing was wrong.' We are dealing with one particular thing, the act of killing, the act of killing at a particular time a particular individual. We are not dealing with right or wrong in the abstract. The question is whether he was able to appreciate the wrongness of the particular act he was doing at the particular time. Could this man be said to know in this sense whether his act was wrong if through a disease or defect or disorder of the mind he could not think rationally of the reasons which to ordinary people make that act right or wrong? 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. If you think that at the time when he administered the poison to the child he had such a mental disorder or disturbance or derangement that he was incapable of reasoning about the right or wrongness, according to ordinary standards, of the thing which he was doing, not that he reasoned wrongly, or that being a reasonable person he had queer or unsound ideas, but that he was quite incapable of taking into account the considerations which go to make right or wrong, then you should find him not guilty upon the ground that he was insane at the time he committed the acts charged.[13]
[13] R v Porter (189 - 190).
McLure P referred to the decision of the High Court in Stapleton v The Queen[14] in which the High Court held that the requirement is not that the accused knew the act was wrong according to law,[15] and said:
… the real issue for the jury in this case was whether the appellant had established on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the killing his mental impairment resulted in a complete incapacity to reason as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary standards. The term 'know' means 'understand', 'appreciate' or 'comprehend'. An incapacity to reason rationally as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary standards prevents a person from understanding that he (or she) ought not do the act. Knowledge (short of understanding) that to kill is punishable by law does not prevent such a finding. Nor is a finding of incapacity dependent upon proof of a positive belief in the rightness of the conduct. Whether an act is right or wrong is determined by reference to an objective standard. The question is whether the appellant had a complete incapacity to reason as to what was, by that objective standard, right or wrong. In this case the appellant's subjective belief was relied upon by the experts to support the conclusion that he was in a psychotic state that prevented rational reasoning on right or wrong.[16]
[14] Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358.
[15] Stapleton [29] - [30].
[16] Evans [31].
Also in Evans, of the capacity to know whether the act was wrong, Wheeler J (with whom Owen J agreed) said:
[T]he capacity which must be found to be lacking is not merely a capacity to appreciate, in some abstract sense, that others would view the act as wrong. Rather, it is a capacity of the particular accused either to discern the difference between moral good and evil, or to 'think rationally' of the reasons which would lead ordinary people to consider the act to be right or wrong.[17]
[17] Evans [60].
I warn myself that it is dangerous to test the accused's knowledge by the standards appropriate in judging the conduct of a sane man.[18]

Capacity to control his actions

[18] Evans [33].

In The State of Western Australia v Taylor,[19] Derrick J made the following observations in relation to the deprivation of the capacity to control actions, which, again, I respectfully adopt:
There is, in my view, no justification for failing to give the phrase 'capacity to control' as used in s 27(1) its ordinary plain meaning. The ordinary plain meaning of the word 'capacity' given the context in which it is being used in s 27(1), is 'a mental power; a faculty'.[20] The ordinary plain meaning of the word 'control' is 'the power of restraining especially self-restraint'.[21]
In my opinion the ordinary plain meaning of the words 'capacity to control' used in s 27(1) and a review of the relevant authorities supports the conclusion that a person is deprived of the capacity to control their actions within the meaning of the section if they are deprived of the capacity to make a conscious decision to act (that is, to act voluntarily) or if they are deprived of the capacity to refrain or restrain themselves from doing a willed act (sometimes also referred to as the capacity to exercise the power of choice to act).[22] Thus, in my opinion, if the effect of a person's mental impairment is to deprive them of the capacity to refrain from doing an act, that is, to exercise the power of choice to act, they will, by reason of their mental impairment, be deprived of the capacity to control their actions within the meaning of s 27(1) even though the act was a willed or deliberate act; an act done as a result of a consciously made decision. It necessarily follows that in determining the effect of a person's mental impairment on their capacity to control their actions the focus will often be on the extent to which their delusions or hallucinations (if any) controlled their actions or deprived them of the power of choice.[23]
In expressing the conclusion stated in the previous paragraph as to the proper interpretation of the phrase 'capacity to control … actions', I am conscious that statements made by some members of the court in R v Falconer appear to limit the meaning and scope of the phrase to insane involuntary action, that is, to acts occurring independently of the person's conscious decision making process.[24] However, given that in R v Falconer the court was dealing with the question of automatism, in my view these statements should not be read as attempts to define the full meaning of the words 'capacity to control…actions' used in s 27(1).[25]
Nothing I have said should be taken as indicating that a person will be deprived of the capacity to control their actions merely by reason of them having a significantly impaired capacity to resist an impulse or an emotion. A significantly impaired capacity to resist an impulse or an emotion does not equate to a deprivation of a person's capacity to control their actions within the meaning of s 27(1).[26]
[19] The State of Western Australia v Taylor [2021] WASC 470 [50] - [53].
[20] Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (5^th ed), page 203.
[21] Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (5^th ed), page 303.
[22] R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30, 39 ‑ 40, 46 - 47; State of Western Australia v Hone [2007] WASC 64 [22]; The State of Western Australia v Strabach [No 2] [2012] WASC 227 [64] ‑ [65]; The State of Western Australia v Brown [2013] WASC 349 [43] ‑ [44]; The State of Western Australia v Siddique [No 2] [2016] WASC 358 [51] ‑ [57]; The State of Western Australia v Marotta [2018] WASC 329 [39] ‑ [45]; The State of Western Australia v Jones[2018] WASC 395[46].
[23] The State of Western Australia v Marotta [44]; The State of Western Australia v Jones [46].
[24] R v Falconer (60, 71, 82).
[25] The same view was expressed by Commissioner Sleight in The State of Western Australia v Strabach [No 2] [64] - [65].
[26] The State of Western Australia v Marotta [45].

Evidence

Admissions

Pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act, the accused made admissions in the following terms:
(1)Robert George Dent was born on 29 August 1974 and was 47 years of age at the time of the incident (The Accused).
(2)Colin Richard Dent was born on 31 January 1946 was (sic) 75 years of age at the time of the incident.
(3) Bernice Rae Dent was born on 10 December 1946 and was 74 years of age at the time of the incident.
(4)Robert George Dent is the biological son of Colin Richard Dent and Bernice Rae Dent ('the Accused's parents').
(5)Robert George Dent was residing with Colin Richard Dent and Bernice Rae Dent at [address redacted], Capel ('the residence').
(6)On 21 September 2021 at Capel, Robert George Dent, struck Colin Richard Dent with a rubber mallet to the head until Colin Richard Dent was dead.
(7)As a result Colin Richard Dent sustained blunt force trauma injuries to the head. Those injuries caused Colin Richard Dent's death.
(8)At the time of causing injury to Colin Richard Dent the Accused intended to kill or to cause Colin Richard Dent a life-threatening bodily injury.
(9)On the same date and at the same place, the Accused, struck Bernice Rae Dent with a rubber mallet to the head several times until she was unconscious. The Accused then severed Bernice Rae Dent's jugular vein with a knife.
(10)As a result, Bernice Rae Dent sustained blunt force trauma to the head and sustained a sharp force laceration to the neck. These injuries caused Bernice Rae Dent's death.
(11)At the time of causing injury to Bernice Rae Dent, the Accused intended to kill or to cause Bernice Rae Dent a life-threatening bodily injury.[27]
[27] Exhibit 1.
It was unnecessary for the State to lead additional evidence in proof of the matters admitted, and I am entitled to accept the admissions as proof beyond reasonable doubt of those matters.
Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of each of Colin Dent and Bernice Dent.
A killing is unlawful unless is it authorised, justified, or excused by law.[28] While the accused has not admitted that the killings were unlawful, it was accepted on his behalf that there was no evidentiary foundation for any authorisation, justification or excuse which the State would need to disprove. In those circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully killed Colin Dent and that he unlawfully killed Bernice Dent.
[28] Criminal Code s 268.
Having so found, I now turn to the question of whether the accused is criminally responsible for the killings; that is, whether the evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that he was of unsound mind at the time of either or both of the unlawful killings.

Witness accounts

General observations of the accused

Geoffrey Dent

The accused has two brothers, one older than him and one younger than him. The accused's younger brother by four years, Geoffrey Dent, said that the family moved to Capel when he was six and into the house in question around 1987 or 1988. He described the accused as 'a good kid … fairly sociable … did well in school'. He recounted an ordinary upbringing, with him and his brothers attending school, socialising with friends and playing sport. This continued into high school, although with less participation in sport. The accused had a couple of girlfriends during this time.
Geoffrey Dent said that the accused was diagnosed with glandular fever at about 16 or 17, in 1991. Around the same time, he was also diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. This caused the accused to be tired all the time. He was not as active socially after that. He would go to school and come home and lie down in his room. Geoffrey Dent observed that the accused started to engage in what he accepted could be described as 'ritualistic behaviours', such as turning on a light a number of times and turning the doorknob multiple times.
After school, the accused went to university, but after six weeks he left, due to his fatigue. He returned to live with his parents in Capel, where he lived until September 2021. He continued to be tired all the time, and the issue of chemical, photo and electromagnetic sensitivities came up around this time. These meant the accused could not really go out much. Geoffrey Dent did not cross paths with him much because the accused seemed to be up and about only late at night.
The accused did see doctors to start with, but no one really found a cure. Bernice Dent was very much into alternative and natural therapies, and she tried to go down that path to assist the accused. She covered all of the windows in the house with foil to try to assist with the accused's photosensitivity, and tried herbal teas and homeopathic drops. People who came over were asked not to wear deodorants, perfumes or make‑up, and she ensured the household cleaning products were chemical free. However, these measures did not seem to improve the accused's condition.
Geoffrey Dent moved out of his parents' home in about 1996, when he was 17 or 18. After that, he occasionally saw the accused, but not often. When he saw him, it was in the accused's bedroom. The accused ate his meals in his room. It was often the case that Geoffrey Dent would need to wait hours to see the accused, because the accused was, for example, in the shower for that length of time. When Geoffrey Dent did get to see the accused, the accused would speak to him for hours through the night, sometimes up to 10 hours at a time, mostly about his illness, his treatments, and family.
Geoffrey Dent confirmed [the names of certain relatives]. As young people, he and the accused used to go to their grandmother's house for Christmas and that was generally the only time they would get together with that side of the family apart from funerals. He confirmed [their relative] was diagnosed with cancer in 1991 and died in 1997, and that the accused did not go to the funeral.
Geoffrey Dent had never heard of radionics machines until after his parents' deaths. When he was clearing the house, he found a number of magazines which appeared to promote alternative therapies in preference to western medicine.

Neighbours of the Dents

Neighbours of the Dents gave evidence of their observations of the family over many years. Their contact was mainly over the fence or the like, and only one describes ever being inside the Dents' house. They had little to do with the accused, whom they rarely saw, but in general understood him to be labouring under some long‑standing ailment and that he had sensitivities or allergies to many things. Some were aware that Bernice Dent treated the accused with natural remedies and organic food. One long term neighbour had had enough to do with the accused over the fence to describe him as a lovely person.
In 2020, that same neighbour heard the accused screaming at his mother on two separate occasions. On one occasion, she heard the accused screaming 'I'm not sick' and saying that Bernice Dent had made him like that. Bernice Dent was yelling at him to stop it. When the neighbour telephoned to check if Bernice Dent was OK, she said she was, and there was no more yelling. The other conversation, which occurred earlier that year, was similar.

Observations after the offence

000 Call

On 24 September 2021, the accused telephoned 000 and told the operator he had just tried to kill himself. He said he had tried to cut his penis off with a knife at about 3.30 to 4.00 am but it was still attached and he had controlled the bleeding by bandaging it up. He said he was not feeling violent; he was feeling tired. When asked what made him do that, he said, 'I hear voices in my brain.' He said that was normal for him, but he had never spoken to a doctor about it, and had not been getting help for that. The operator asked how long he had been struggling with this for, and he said, 'since 1991'.
In the course of the conversation which followed, the operator asked the accused if he had family in Capel and he said he had his mum and his dad. When asked if they were helpful, he said they were really great. However, shortly afterwards, the following exchange occurred:
RD:I think I'm going to need the police too.
CO:Yeah? Why do you think you'll need them?
RD:Um, both my parents are dead …
CO:When - when did they pass away?
RD:On Monday night.
CO:Oh, what happened?
RD:Oh, I - I hit them with a mallet.
CO:Okay. And did - did you report that to the police?
RD:No. That's why I tried to kill myself.
CO:So, where - where are your parents right now?
RD:They're in bed. They're both in their beds dead.
CO:Okay. And so, what happened with that?
RD:I don't know. I have been hearing voices and two of my - [relatives] attacking me with something called radionics machines.
CO:Yeah
RD:I don't know what radionics machines are, but they're something to so with electromagnetic radiation and I - I hear constant (licking) sounds and sounds - they're making noises and sounds at me. And they - they said I had to kill people or my mum and dad. But I love my mum and dad a lot. [The relatives] don't like my mum and dad. They hate them [indistinct] to or not.
CO:So, are your parents in the house with you now?
RD:Yeah, I've covered them up with doonas and tried to make everything smell nice. They're still there because they're both dead. Sorry about that.
Throughout the call, the accused's voice appeared flat and unemotional.

First responding police

Senior Constable McDonald and Senior Constable Woods attended the accused's house. They were wearing body worn cameras. SC McDonald knocked on the door and the accused answered. He was wearing a jumper and had a towel wrapped around his waist. He had blood on his legs, feet and hands. SC McDonald asked if he needed an ambulance and he said he did. SC McDonald asked him to come outside which he did, responding to a request for his name by saying 'Robert'.
When asked if there was anyone else in the house, the accused said, 'My Mum and Dad they are both dead.' When he asked what happened, he said, 'I killed them'. SC McDonald asked where his parents were and the accused pointed in two directions.
SC McDonald entered the house. A towel was rolled up at the bottom of the door, as if to stop a draft. The curtains were closed and a fan was on. A door leading from the living room also had a towel rolled up at its base. He went into the room, which was a bedroom, and found a person lying in the bed, deceased. He found another bedroom, also with a person lying under a doona, deceased. In a third bedroom, there was lots of blood on the bed and floor.
SC McDonald observed that there was writing all over the walls and all of the curtains in the house were closed. A mallet was by the front door. A knife with blood on it was on the kitchen bench.
SC McDonald placed the accused under arrest and cautioned him and the accused responded appropriately.
While SC McDonald was in the house, SC Woods stayed with the accused. The accused told him that the blood on his hands was his own, and said, 'Sorry about this'. SC Woods cautioned the accused.
SC Woods observed crosses on the accused's face, legs and feet, and asked the accused what it was. The accused told him it was Sharpie pen. SC Woods asked the accused when his parents died and he said it was early in the hours of Tuesday morning. SC Woods patted him down and asked about his injuries.
SC Woods asked the accused how old he was, and then asked if there was any reason he had killed his parents. The accused replied:
Because I heard something called radionics machines telling me to do all these strange things, I don't know what radionics machines are.
The accused spelled 'radionics' for SC Woods and said:
I've got no idea what they are. Something to do with my [relatives] apparently they own them, radionics machines.
The accused then had a discussion with SC Woods and Sergeant Page (who had arrived by this time) about his injuries. When asked how he killed his parents, he said he had used a wood working mallet. He told the officers it was just inside the door on top of the fridge.

Paramedics

Kingsley Ford, a paramedic, arrived at the scene after SC Woods and SC McDonald. He assisted the accused to remove his clothing, and saw that the accused had drawn religious crosses all over his body in black marker. The accused had lots of dried blood on his hands and feet. His penis was cut across its width. He told the paramedic, when asked, that he wanted to kill himself.
The Patient Care Record records the accused as being unemotional but compliant and slightly confused as to day. He was talking in full sentences. He denied any religious involvement.
Body worn camera footage from the time during which the accused was being treated in the ambulance shows the accused's body and head to be almost completely covered with pen markings of crosses.

Pathology reports

Colin Dent suffered a severe head injury with bruising around his eyes and to the left side of his face, and injuries to his scalp on the left of his head. He had extensive underlying skull fractures. There was extensive brain haemorrhage.
Bernice Dent had severe injuries to her head and neck. She had bruises and lacerations to her scalp and face, extensive fracturing of the skull bones and underlying brain injury. There was a deep incised cut on the right side of her neck with complete disruption of the internal jugular vein. She had bruises and lacerations on her hands and two fractured bones in her hands.

Toxicology

Blood was taken from the accused. No illicit substances or relevant prescription drugs were detected on analysis of that blood.

Record of interview of the accused

The accused was interviewed by police in the evening of 25 September 2021. Throughout the interview, he was of flat affect.
When asked if he had any illness, he said he had 'chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic sensitivity'. He said that affected him every day of the week. When asked how, he said:
Um, makes me fatigued. If I smell - it's a strong smelling chemicals, which there doesn't seem to be here, which is good. Strong chemical cleaners, it makes me - cleaning products, it makes me fatigued, and so [indistinct] my brain, so I can't think properly, or think correctly, and if there's too much, too many fluorescent lights, or too much electromagnetic products, which there isn't on the desk, thankfully, the same thing. Fatigue and wipes out my brain.
The accused frankly admitted that at about 4.25 am on the Tuesday morning he had gone to the room where his father lay sleeping, and hit him in the head with a rubber mallet, which he had taken from the shed. He said that after the first blow, his father's temple started to swell. He said his father then 'sort of woke up', and looked at the accused, who then struck him repeatedly to the head with the mallet.
The accused also admitted that at about 5.05 am he killed his mother with the rubber mallet to the head, but she was suffering so he used the knife to cut her throat to help her die faster. He said:
It was horrible. Horrific. I killed them both.
He told the police he did not know how long he had hit his father for, and said:
It was awful. It was awful. I love my mum and dad. These radionics machines, I don't even know what they are. I seemed to be crazy. All I could hear was [the relatives' voices], and they were - it's all about [redacted] dying and the fact they said I didn't help him, and I didn't, I didn't go and say goodbye and give him a hug and a kiss. That's what they wanted. So these radionics machines, they said they've been using them since 1997. I didn't really know what that meant, but something from Nexus magazine, because they have radionics machines, and that's what drove me crazy …
That's why I did it. I love my mum and dad. I've lived there since 1985 in that house. I love them. I never wanted to kill them, they've been the best carers for me ever.
The accused told the police that he and his parents were going to be called paedophiles and that someone had made 'virtual reality pornography'.
The accused said that the beginning of his illness coincided with his [relative's] cancer diagnosis in 1991 and subsequent funeral in 1997. He attributed some involvement to certain chemicals having been dumped in the Capel River, in which he used to swim as a child.
The accused described things that his parents did to care for him, including turning to alternative medicine and reducing his exposure to chemicals. Doctors were initially involved, but over time the family just dealt with it themselves.
The accused gave a sensible and detailed account of his parents' backgrounds and his family.
The accused said he started hearing radionics machines in his head in July 2021. He had read about them years before, but he and his mother had not thought they would be any good for him because of the electromagnetic radiation.
He recounted the history of a family feud relating to [relative's] cancer diagnosis in 1991. He said that he thought his [relatives] were using the radionics machines on him; they can be programmed to give positive or negative thoughts and they were attacking him with negative thoughts. He said that his [relative] had been attacking him and his parents with all different frequencies of radiation, and both his parents were about to die. However, he also said he did not even know if they really had a radionics machine; his 'brain just started going crazy'.
The accused said that he was meant to kill himself as well, because on the radionics machine, 'they said if we kill ourselves, they'll forgive us for what happened in 1991'. He was going to cut his throat, but thought it would be easier to bleed to death if he cut his penis off. However, he passed out from the pain.
When he recounted what he did to his father, he said:
It was such a cruel and horrible thing to do. I hated doing it, so I didn't count. Honestly wasn't counting. I don't know how many times, it was horrible.
He described his mother waking and asking him why he was doing it. He told her that it was because [relative] was trying to kill them with radionics machines. He described her putting her hand up and hitting her hand with the mallet. She said she needed to go to the hospital and he hit her again, which knocked her out. He kept hitting her but she was still breathing, so he got the knife and cut her throat.
The accused said that after that he was walking around in a daze. He kept hearing the radionics machines. He said:
No one else is to blame, even if they are attacking me with radionics machines. I'm the one who decided to get the hammer and the knife, so I did it, and they were saying so much crap, I can't even remember all the crap they were saying. I don't even know if just my brain was going stupid after years of being isolated, having no friends, maybe that's why, maybe my brain just started thinking up all this crap, maybe they don't have radionics machines at all, but I'm the one who did it. I'm 100% guilty for it.
The accused told the police that afterwards, he tried to clean up. He did not know why, because he meant to kill himself. He said he was trying to set them up to make it look like his relatives had killed them. The writing on the walls was to make it look like [his relatives] had killed him and his parents. The crosses he drew on his own person was to make them appear to be devil worshippers, because he did not think anyone would believe it was about the argument about his relative. He also staged items to make it appear as if he had been sexually assaulted in satanic rituals.

Evidence from the scene

Photographs have been produced of the extensive writing on the walls. The writings accuse numerous relatives of being part of a paedophile ring, and being Satanists and devil worshippers. The writings assert certain people killed Colin and Bernice Dent and were going to sexually assault the accused, or already had. One section contains a plea for help on the part of the accused, because his parents usually helped him. In another, he expresses remorse for what he has done. In one, he references the killing of his parents and says:
I am so scared now, for what, has to happen next, I don't want to, have to die, but the 'Radionics machines', keep saying that if I die next, then [the relatives] will do everything, that they can, to help, disabled people like me, all around the world, after I have died. That they will only agree to help people, with severe Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, severe Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, and severe Electro-Magnetic Sensitivities, after I have, agreed to kill myself, as soon as possible.

Medical Records

Seven volumes of medical records from the Frankland Centre were tendered, pursuant to s 79C of the Evidence Act. The parties informed me that these records were tendered on the basis that they were relied upon by the psychiatrists and that, if any particular record was to be relied upon, I would be specifically directed to it and there was no need for me to go through the records myself. On that basis, I accepted the records as an exhibit in the trial.

Psychiatric evidence

Evidence of Dr Adam Brett

By consent of the parties, and pursuant to s 93 of the CPA, Dr Brett's report dated 10 December 2022 was tendered, and he gave supplementary oral evidence.
Dr Brett is a Consultant Psychiatrist with 24 years' experience. He interviewed the accused in November and December 2022. Dr Brett had access to the recordings of the accused, the photographs of the writing on the wall, medical records from the Frankland Centre, and a report of Dr Pascu dated 2 May 2022. He also liaised with the accused's treating team.
The accused gave Dr Brett a historical account of his symptoms and feelings as at September 2021. As was accepted on behalf of the accused, that account was technically hearsay and not admissible to establish the events of 21 to 24 September 2021.[29] However, it was consistent with admissible accounts given by the accused in the 000 call, the body worn camera footage, the accused's record of interview and at the time of his admission to the Frankland Centre. Clearly, the history was also relevant to Dr Brett's diagnosis.
[29] Ramsey v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 642, 647.
The accused told Dr Brett that at the time of the offences he was being controlled by a radionics machine programmed by his [relatives]. The accused said the problems stemmed from him not visiting [redacted] in 1991, when the latter was diagnosed with cancer, and that his relatives had threatened to kill him every year since. He said that in 2020 he became aware he was being controlled by a radionics machine, which could put thoughts into his head. It had told him to kill his parents and himself. Up until then, he had heard voices of 'devils and demons'; this was different.
To Dr Brett, the accused denied believing he and his parents were to be exposed as paedophiles, and said he did not recall telling the police that he had believed that.
The accused described the killings in a manner largely consistent with the way in which he described them to the police. He said he now knew his actions were wrong and expressed himself to be 'sad and devastated'. Dr Brett reported that the accused continued to believe he was forced to carry out his actions by his [relative], and did not believe them to be caused by his mental disorder.
The accused told Dr Brett that he had heard voices since the age of four years. The voices had told him to kill other people and himself since. He did not recognise the voices but referred to them as 'devils and demons' and said they said derogatory things about him. The accused said he had not told anyone about them.
Dr Brett did not consider that the accused had actually been hearing voices from such a young age; it is likely that would have been detected. His school records were incompatible with him being psychotic at that age. In Dr Brett's view, it is more likely that the accused has a delusional memory in this regard and he probably started hearing voices at around the age of 17.
The accused said he had previously seen the devils and demons, which he described as black apparitions. They were not related to the radionics machine, which he said had taken him over in 2020.
Dr Brett recounted the history from the accused's medical records and treatment team. The clinical impression on admission after the killings was that the accused had a schizophreniform disorder with premorbid schizoid personality traits. He was commenced on antipsychotic medication and transferred to the Frankland Centre.
At the Frankland Centre, his medications were reviewed and changed, and a trial of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was commenced. He had a number of courses of ECT. In February 2022, he was commenced on clozapine, an antipsychotic reserved for use in treatment resistant psychotic conditions.
There was no reliable substance abuse history. The accused has no history of any serious head injury and there is no known family history of mental disorder.
The accused told Dr Brett he recalled an ordinary childhood until university. After six weeks of studying arts, he became ill with chronic fatigue. He and his parents researched his condition and believed it was caused by chemical and electromagnetic sensitivity. He had never worked, and was on a disability pension. He did not see any friends. He had not been to the shops since 2000, and had not left the property since 2012.
Dr Brett found the accused to be a poor historian, with some memory deficits and poor mental health literacy. At the time of his interviews with Dr Brett, he had some suicidal ideas but did not intend to act on them. He described ongoing psychotic phenomena regarding his [relatives] and the radionics machine but said they had reduced in intensity.
In relation to the record of interview, Dr Brett observed that the accused had a restricted affect, which is one of the negative symptoms of psychotic disorders. His affect was also incongruent with his situation. He described numerous psychotic phenomena and exhibited a lot of symptoms consistent with hallucinations. Dr Brett considered that, in the course of the record of interview, the accused was floridly psychotic.
Dr Brett diagnosed the accused with schizoaffective disorder, a chronic psychotic disorder with features of schizophrenia and features of a mood disorder; in this case, depression. Schizophrenia can have positive symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations, and negative symptoms, such as lack of drive and motivation. There can also be cognitive symptoms as well.
Dr Brett was of the opinion that the accused developed a mental disorder at the time that he became unable to continue with university. His parents appeared to have believed he had chronic fatigue associated with chemical and electromagnetic sensitivity, which they tried to manage with alternative therapies. However, a lot of his symptoms were more likely to have been related to his mental health.
In Dr Brett's view, the accused's mental disorder deteriorated in the months before the killings, and he started experiencing auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions, believing there was a satanic religious cult, with which most people he knew were involved, and that he was completely controlled by the radionics machine.
Dr Brett considered that the treatment resistant nature of the accused's disorder probably related to the prolonged duration of his untreated psychosis. Indeed, despite the course of ECT and taking clozapine, the accused remained psychotic as at December 2022.
In Dr Brett's view, at the time of the killings, the accused had (and continues to have) a mental impairment, namely a mental illness. At the time of the killings, he was acutely unwell.
Dr Brett was of the view that the accused was not deprived of the capacity to understand what he was doing. However, Dr Brett did consider that the accused was deprived, by his mental impairment, of the capacity to know what he ought not do the acts, saying:
He had quite a complex delusional system which involved his relatives and [redacted]. He believed that for the last 20 years they'd been wanting to kill him. He believed that they were wanting to frame him and his parents as paedophiles, and he believed that he was being controlled by a radionics machine. So I believe that, in his florid psychosis, he felt that the only option for him was to kill his parents and then try and kill himself, which would absolve him of the things that his relatives were - were trying to blame him for, and then he wanted then to try and frame them for what he'd done. So I think, given his psychosis, he believed that he had no options, and what he was doing was morally right.
Dr Brett expressed the opinion that the accused thought he and his thoughts were being controlled by the radionics machine and the other symptoms he was experiencing deprived him of the capacity to think rationally.
Dr Brett also formed the opinion that the accused was deprived of the capacity to control his actions, saying:
I believe that he was so psychotic that he had very little understanding of what was happening in the world around him. He had not left the family home in years, he did not communicate with anyone else. He felt completely controlled by his psychotic experience.
In cross-examination, Dr Brett agreed that, whether the diagnosis was 'schizoaffective disorder' or 'schizophrenia', the accused was still suffering from a mental illness with the impacts he described.

Evidence of Dr Victoria Pascu

Again by consent of the parties, Dr Pascu's report dated 2 May 2022 was tendered and supplemented by oral evidence.
Dr Pascu is a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, of at least 20 years' experience. She interviewed the accused on 5 October 2021, and then again in January 2022 and April 2022. She had access to the Statement of Material Facts, the accused's Frankland Centre medical files, photographs from the scene, and the scene recording. She was, more recently, provided with copies of the record of interview, body worn camera footage and the 000 recording, after which she again interviewed the accused, in May 2023.
The accused gave Dr Pascu his family background. He described his father as authoritarian. He said his mother would sometimes be verbally abusive, but said she was also great and generous. He indicated that he had not spoken to his brothers for some years. He said that in 1994 he was diagnosed with chronic fatigue and said that he believed that was caused by using the landline phone, which he and his mother later figured out was due to the magnetic fields.
The accused described the early progression of his fatigue and his attempts to combat it with herbal teas and then coffee. He said that his mother always believed him that the cause was the magnetic fields, because the doctors could not give an alternative explanation.
The accused indicated that his fatigue got bad when he was about 15 and really bad when he was about 17. He thought that toxic chemicals in the river caused him to be more vulnerable to the magnetic fields which affected his nervous system.
He isolated himself at home; sometimes able to watch television, other times sleeping for long periods. He said he was seeing spirits, like dark shadows, and hearing three or four men talking in his mind. He was not sure who they were. It sounded like spiritual talk; sometimes nice, sometimes nasty. Sometimes they would tell him to kill himself or unspecified other people. He recalled that at first there were two radionics machines but he did not pick them up and by July 2020 there were 900 radionic machines affecting him; the people told him that his relatives wanted to kill him.
The accused told Dr Pascu that he felt he had to kill his parents and himself as he felt he was programmed with audio visual programmes which were somehow beamed onto him. The voices from the machines sounded like his relatives, but there were sometimes lots of voices and he thought they used recorded phone calls which they added to the machines and beamed those onto him. They were talking about him, putting him down and telling him to kill himself.
In this interview in October 2021, he said that in July 2020 the voices became stronger, telling him to kill himself and his family because of what happened in 1997 (not going to [redacted's] funeral). The day before the killings was normal; he kissed his parents good night and hugged them and told them he loved him. However, he woke at 4.00 am knowing he had to do it; the voices were telling him he had to do it.
In his interview in January 2022, he said the voices started to become stronger in 'maybe' September 2020. He said:
… they just started sounding like worse, many of them, inside my head, both men and women telling me they would kill me, they sounded like a mix of strangers and people who I maybe know but I didn't think they sounded like my parents back then; they were talking about paedophiles.

He also told Dr Pascu:
I think I have been hearing those voices since I was five telling me to kill myself and others; I had thoughts of a knife at my throat from a young age, or images of poking people's eyes with a knife or a screwdriver; I saw spirits on the walls, all black and this got more frequent over the years, I even felt touched by the spirits and that made me think I may be psychic but at the same time it kind of scared me; I even smelt the spirits and I just kept telling myself I must be psychic; I don't think I got messages from TV or radio but I felt that spirits took over my body, my arms like feeling overshadowed by the dark spirits who seemed to be in control.
Like Dr Brett, Dr Pascu considered that it was more likely that the onset of the accused's illness was in his teens, and that his description of hearing voices since the age of five could be him generalising his feeling of having been unwell for a long time, or he may be experiencing delusional memories. Dr Pascu also thought that his chronic fatigue from the age of 17 years was potentially part of the 'prodromal' phase of his psychotic illness, which manifested more fully in around 1997.
The accused said his symptoms were ongoing. To Dr Pascu, he acknowledged that he believed he had a mental illness and that he likely required lifelong medications.
In April 2022, the accused told Dr Pascu that he had drawn the crosses on himself because the voices told him to. They also said to kill himself by cutting himself 666 times, but he knew he could not do that so he decided to do six cuts.
He said that since the ECT the voices were less intense and weakening. He saw less spirits and the machines were still there but he was able to not listen to them.
The writings on the wall, the drawing of crosses on his body, the contents of the record of interview, body worn camera footage, and 000 call were all largely consistent with what the accused told Dr Pascu. Dr Pascu noted the 'restricted' affect of the accused in those recordings was consistent with someone who has a psychotic illness. He seemed detached from the tragic events. He did not appear to be thought disordered, but there was evidence of auditory hallucinations of a commanding nature, delusions of feeling controlled and persecutory delusions, as well as the negative symptoms, such as his restricted affect.
In Dr Pascu's view, to the extent there were inconsistencies in the accused's account, these could be explained by his mental illness, or the impacts of the treatment, both on his memory and by way of improvement of his condition.
Dr Pascu noted the accused's primary diagnosis was schizophrenia with a mood component, although a differential diagnosis of psychotic depression was considered. Having gone untreated for decades, it was considered that it would be difficult to shift his mental state with medication alone, and so he willingly underwent a course of ECT.
Dr Pascu diagnosed the accused with schizophrenia. She formed the view that it had improved with treatment, although he continued to have some psychotic symptoms. He said he had reasonable insight into his condition. He was also grieving the death of his parents.
In Dr Pascu's opinion, the accused appears to have been suffering from a psychotic disorder for most of his life, from his teenage years, which was never diagnosed or treated, instead being misdiagnosed as chronic fatigue. It seems that the manner in which he and his mother dealt with his condition thereafter may have inadvertently contributed to his condition worsening. Dr Pascu considered it 'astounding' that he had functioned for such a long time without appropriate treatment.
Dr Pascu was asked how her diagnosis differed from that of Dr Brett. She said:
Schizoaffective disorder is a psychotic disorder as well and it's a combination of the psychotic symptoms with affective episodes which are combined with the psychotic symptoms, whether depressive or manic. And when the affective symptoms are treated or they improve, the underlying psychotic symptoms remain. Schizophrenia … is a psychotic illness. So the features of schizophrenia are the same. The diagnosis of schizophrenia with affective symptoms, whether depressive or manic, it kind of presents the same as schizoaffective disorder.
Dr Pascu formed the view that 'it is very likely that at the time of the alleged offence his mental state was altered to the extent to affect his capacities under s 27 of the Criminal Code'.
Dr Pascu was of the opinion that the accused was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the acts which killed his parents. In this regard, she said there was a defect in the accused's reasoning for his actions, because it was based on his psychosis. The accused's psychotic reality prevented him from reasoning rationally as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary standards.
Dr Pascu also concluded that the accused was deprived of the capacity to control his actions. At the time of the killings, the accused was experiencing command auditory hallucinations identifying the victims, together with underlying persecutory delusions which incorporated his parents, including delusions of being controlled by the radionics machines. His emotional state also contributed. In Dr Pascu's opinion, those three factors are considered to give rise to a higher propensity to commit acts of violence and their presence in this case led her to the view that the accused was deprived of the capacity to control his actions.

Conclusion

Findings as to the killings of Colin Richard Dent and Bernice Rae Dent

I find, as a matter of fact, that during the night of 21 September 2021 the accused formed the intention to kill his father, Colin Richard Dent, and his mother, Bernice Rae Dent. He went to the shed of his house and collected a rubber mallet, and at about 4.30 am, entered the bedroom where his father lay sleeping, and struck him with the mallet. His father awoke, but the accused struck him to the head again, numerous times, causing very significant head injuries which resulted in his death.
A short time later, the accused armed himself with a sharp knife owned by his father, and went to the bedroom where his mother slept. He struck her in the head with the rubber mallet. She too awoke, and asked the accused what he was doing. He told her that it was because of his relative and the radionics machine, and struck her again. She tried to defend herself by putting her arm up, and the mallet struck her hand. The accused then struck her again numerous times to the head, causing her to lose consciousness, and inflicting severe head injuries. However, the accused observed that Ms Dent was still breathing, so he took the knife he had brought with him and cut Ms Dent's neck, severing her jugular vein. In combination, her injuries resulted in her death.

After the killings, the accused spent the next few days in the house. He intended that he would also kill himself. He covered his parents' faces with bedding. He tried to clean up some of the blood, and sprayed air freshener to mask the smell. He put towels at the base of the doors to stop smells coming from the rooms. He wrote a number of messages on walls in the house, which made allegations against various relatives who he said attacked his parents and asserted they were members of a paedophile ring and Satanic worshippers, some of whom he accused of sexual assault over many years. He wrote that he was going to be sexually assaulted and killed. He begged for help. His intentions were to make it appear as if his relatives had killed his parents and him.
The accused also engaged in conduct to make it appear as if he had been sexually assaulted and arranged implements in his room in this regard. He drew crosses all over his body. Then, in the early hours of 24 September 2021, he took the same knife he had used to cut his mother's throat and attempted to sever his penis, intending to cause his own death. The pain and blood loss caused him to pass out, but he made a number of attempts. Eventually, he realised he was not going to be successful in causing his own death, and he called 000.
In the 000 call, the accused admitting to killing his parents, because he was attacked by his relatives using radionics machines which said he had to kill his parents.
The police were called, and the accused made admissions to the first responders, and later to detectives, to killing both of his parents, because relatives had controlled him by the use of radionics machines, which told him to do so.

Findings as to the accused's mental health

I am satisfied that, at the age of approximately 17 years, the accused experienced the onset of symptoms of a psychotic disorder. Those symptoms initially were significant fatigue, but over time the accused also developed what he interpreted as various sensitivities. These were in fact likely to be symptoms of his mental illness. Unfortunately, the accused was initially diagnosed as having chronic fatigue, following on from glandular fever, and he did not receive appropriate medical treatment for his emerging mental illness. Instead, the accused and his mother turned to alternative remedies, which resulted in the mental illness becoming entrenched and 'normalised'.
The accused became more and more reclusive, and spent much of his time in his room, often sleeping. He did not socialise with others, except on rare occasions, and even then only in his room. He ate in his room. He did not go to the shops after 2000, and did not leave the property where he lived after 2012. He could not watch much television or listen to the radio, because of perceived electromagnetic sensitivities. He could not go outside during the day, due to perceived photosensitivity. As a result, he had little contact with the outside world.
Between 2020 and 2021, the accused increasingly heard command auditory hallucinations; he became convinced that relatives were attacking him and controlling him using 'radionics machines', as a result of events which occurred between 1991 and 1997. He heard voices telling him to kill himself, and which told him to kill his parents. He did not tell anyone about the voices.
Eventually, in the early hours of 21 September 2021, he acted on the command auditory hallucinations, and killed Colin Dent and Bernice Dent as I have described.

Findings as to unsoundness of mind

The differences in clinical diagnoses by Dr Brett and Dr Pascu are, in the legal context of this trial, of little significance. I am satisfied that the accused has, and at all material times had, either schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia. Each has at its core the presence of psychotic symptoms, which both experts agreed, and I accept, were readily apparent in the accused at the time of his arrest and have continued to the present day. As such, I am satisfied that the accused suffered a 'mental illness' at the time of the killings of Colin Dent and Bernice Dent and therefore was operating under a mental impairment as defined by the Criminal Code.
I am also satisfied, on the basis of the expert opinions expressed by Dr Brett and Dr Pascu, and having regard to the legal principles I have outlined above, that as a result of his mental impairment, at the time of each of the killings, the accused was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the acts which caused the death, and further that he was deprived of the capacity to control his actions.
The evidence was universally to the effect that, as a result of his mental impairment, at the time of the killings, the accused was experiencing paranoid delusions and command auditory hallucinations. He was, in effect, experiencing an alternative reality. In that reality, he could not reason about his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure and was unable to reason rationally as to what was right or wrong according to ordinary standards. For that reason, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not commit the acts which killed Colin Dent and Bernice Dent.
The evidence was also overwhelmingly to the effect that the accused genuinely believed that he was being controlled by radionics machines, and that those machines and the voices associated with them required him to kill his parents and then himself. I accept the opinions of both Dr Brett and Dr Pascu that the extent of the delusions and hallucinations being experienced by the accused at the time of each of the killings was such as to deprive him of the capacity to refrain or restrain himself from killing Colin Dent and Bernice Dent. Accordingly, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was, by reason of his mental impairment, deprived of the capacity to control his actions.

Verdict

I find the accused not guilty of the murder of Colin Richard Dent on account of unsoundness of mind.
I find the accused not guilty of the murder of Bernice Rae Dent on account of unsoundness of mind.

Order consequent upon verdict

As a result of my finding, pursuant to s 149(1) of the CPA and s 21 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) (in conjunction with Sch 1 of that Act) I am required to, and do, make a custody order in respect of the accused.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AT
Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester
17 JULY 2023