The State of Western Australia v Silins
[2022] WADC 109
•8 DECEMBER 2022
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SILINS [2022] WADC 109
CORAM: GILLAN DCJ
HEARD: 24 NOVEMBER 2022
DELIVERED : 8 DECEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S: IND 2313 of 2021
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
PAUL SHAYNE SILINS
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Offences of violence - Insanity - Whether the accused was mentally impaired - Whether accused lacked the capacity to know he ought not do the act
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
Result:
Accused found not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind on each count on the indictment
Custody order made
Representation:
Counsel:
| The State of Western Australia | : | Mr S B Watters |
| Accused | : | Ms R A Myers |
Solicitors:
| The State of Western Australia | : | State Director of Public Prosecutions |
| Accused | : | Legal Aid Western Australia |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Armanasco v The King (1951) 52 WALR 78
Devine v The Queen [1982] Tas R 155; (1982) 8 A Crim R 45
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; (1994) 179 CLR 500
Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254
GILLAN DCJ:
Charge and history of the proceedings
Paul Shayne Silins (the accused) was charged on indictment that:
1.Count 1: on 29 February 2020 at Cloverdale he, with intent to harm, did an act as a result of which bodily harm was caused to Adam Tarr.
2.Count 2: on the same date and at same place he, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or do some grievous bodily harm to Michael David Meyerhoff, unlawfully wounded Michael David Meyerhoff.
3.Count 3: on the same date at Cannington he, with intent to harm, did an act as a result of which bodily harm was caused to Katie Marie Valentine.
4.Count 4: on 1 March 2020 at Claremont he assaulted Peter Hua, a person who was then working in a hospital.
On 27 May 2022 his Honour Judge Stavrianou made an order pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (CPA) that the trial be heard by judge alone and the trial came on before me on 24 November 2022.
At trial the prosecution case was, described broadly, that the accused first attacked his neighbour, Mr Tarr, in the street outside their respective homes causing Mr Tarr injury.
Later in the day that the accused attacked a locksmith, Mr Meyerhoff, who attended at the home which the accused shares with his mother. That attack caused Mr Meyerhoff to be wounded.
Still later that day, when being held at the Cannington lock‑up, the accused attacked an auxiliary police officer who had brought him a shirt to wear. That attack resulted in injury to the police officer.
Finally, after he was admitted to a secure psychiatric facility, the accused attacked Mr Hua who was a security guard at that facility.
The defence case was that the accused was in the grip of an acute psychotic episode at the time of each of these attacks, he was of unsound mind and is relieved of criminal responsibility by the operation of s 27 of the Criminal Code (WA).
On 25 November 2022 I entered a judgment of acquittal with respect to each of counts 1 - 4 on the indictment on account of unsoundness of mind and made a custody order pursuant to s 21(a) of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA). These are my reasons for doing so.
Accused plea and formal admissions
At the commencement of the trial, on 24 November 2022, the accused entered a plea of not guilty to each count.
Formal admissions pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) (Evidence Act) in the following terms were made:
I, PAUL SHAYNE SILINS admit the following pursuant to section 32 of the Evidence Act (Western Australian) 1906:
1.[A]dmit to committing the physical acts as alleged in the Statement of Material Facts dated 21 November 2022.
In particular, I admit;
(a)I charged at Mr TARR causing him to land on his back on the road, then had him in a headlock and placed one hand around his neck, pushing my thumbs into the larynx area. I also got hold of his arm and placed my mouth around his forearm and started moving my mouth along the arm.
(b)I grabbed Mr MEYERHOFF from behind and began to apply pressure with both hands to constrict his throat and apply pressure to the larynx. I further struggled with him over a hammer and in the process hit him 3 times to the top of his head. I then again tackled him to the ground.
(c)I grabbed PAO VALENTINE with one hand by the throat and applied pressure to the larynx area. With my other hand I grabbed her hair and pulled it back. I admit biting her ear and scalp while squeezing her jaw.
(d)I lunged at Mr HUA attempting to grab at his neck and pushing him up against a door in the process.
Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides that:
An accused person, either personally or by his counsel or solicitor, in his presence, may admit on his trial any fact alleged or sought to be proved against him, and such admission shall be sufficient proof of the fact without other evidence.
The formal admissions are contained in exhibit 3. They are sufficient proof of the facts admitted but that does not preclude the State from relying also on other evidence that also tends to prove those facts.
Agreed facts and documentary evidence
The parties agreed what was in issue for the determination of the court was whether Mr Silins' actions were excused by the operation of s 27 of the Criminal Code. The State's case would be put before the court by way of an agreed statement of material facts and the tender of the statement of various specified witnesses and a number of other specified materials contained in the updated prosecution brief dated 21 November 2022. Those materials were tendered by the State.
The State called Dr Alexander Van Hattem, a forensic psychiatrist, to give expert evidence on which it relied. Dr Van Hattem's report was also tendered without objection.
At the conclusion of the State's case Mr Silins elected not to give evidence himself and the defence called Dr Adam Brett, a forensic psychiatrist, to give expert evidence on which the accused relied in support of the defence. Two reports prepared by Dr Brett were tendered without objection.
Section 93 of the CPA provides that if an accused pleads not guilty to a charge on account of unsoundness of mind and the judge is satisfied that the only fact in issue is whether the accused is not criminally responsible under s 27 of the Criminal Code, the judge may decide the issue on any evidence and in any manner the judge thinks fit as long as the prosecutor consents and the accused does not object to the judge doing so and it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Having regard to s 93 of the CPA and the positions taken by the parties, I was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to receive into evidence the formal admissions of the accused, the statement of agreed facts, the witness statements and the other materials contained in the updated prosecution brief dated 21 November 2022 and to hear the evidence of the expert witnesses for the purposes of determining whether the accused was of unsound mind in accordance with s 27 of the Criminal Code.
Statutory requirements in relation to trials by judge alone
I am to apply the same law and procedure to this trial that would have applied had the trial been heard before a jury: s 118 CPA.
On a trial by judge alone I may make any findings and give any verdict the jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury: s 120(1)(a) CPA.
My judgment must include the principles of law that I have applied and the findings of fact that I make: s 120(2) CPA. Following are the legal principles that I must apply in determining these charges.
Principles of law applicable in this case
Burden and standard of proof
Mr Silins is presumed to be innocent of each charge brought against him. Mr Silins did not give evidence in this trial. It was the accused's right not to do so and no adverse inference may be drawn against him in exercising his right to silence.
The State bears the burden of proof of the charge. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Each and every element of the offence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Every person is presumed to be of sound mind at any time which is in issue unless the contrary is proven: s 26 Criminal Code.
Mr Silins bears the burden of proving unsoundness of mind on the balance of probabilities: see R v Porter;[1] Armanasco v The King.[2]
[1] R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182.
[2] Armanasco v The King (1951) 52 WALR 78.
This is a criminal trial. It must be determined solely on the evidence, without speculation. Nothing counsel says is evidence and the evidence must be considered dispassionately and objectively. Any feelings of prejudice or sympathy must be put aside.
Part of the evidence of a witness may be accepted and other parts of the evidence by the same witness may be disregarded.
With respect to counts 1, 2 and 3, in which intention is a relevant element, the defence of insanity comes to be considered once the State has established all of the elements of that offence other than intention: Hawkins v The Queen;[3] Ward v The Queen.[4] If the defence is established, the proper verdict is not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.
[3] Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; (1994) 179 CLR 500, 517.
[4] Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254 [25], [53] - [57], [103].
For the same reasons, count 4 the defence of insanity comes to be considered once the State has established all of the elements of that offence other than the unlawfulness of the assault.
The facts are not disputed by the accused and for each count the specific acts are admitted by him.[5] Even where facts are uncontroversial there remains the need for the court to be satisfied of the prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the elements of the offence before the accused can be found to be guilty or, as in this case, before it is necessary to determine the issue of unsoundness of mind.
Inferences
[5] See exhibit 3, the admissions pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act.
With respect to counts 1, 2 and 3 the evidence in respect to the accused's state of mind consists of statements made by him at the time (count 2) and the circumstantial evidence which is admitted by him. A finding of fact about his intention with respect to those counts would therefore depend on the drawing of inferences.
When determining what inference or inferences can be drawn from any particular aspect of the evidence, the evidence must be considered as a whole, not in isolation or on a piecemeal basis: R v Hillier.[6]
[6] R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618 [1], [48] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ and Gleeson CJ).
I may draw an inference against the accused only if I am satisfied that it was the only reasonable inference available to be drawn. I must consider, therefore, whether there are any reasonable alternative inferences which could be consistent with the accused's innocence. To the extent that proof of the insanity defence depends on the drawing of inferences, the onus is on the accused to satisfy me the inference should be drawn on the balance of probabilities.
Expert evidence
At trial two experts gave evidence in which they expressed essentially the same views and their evidence was uncontested. The experts' reports were also tendered.
In addition to the witness statements relevant to each count on the indictment, each expert has relied on an account of relevant events given to him by the accused on interview and also on materials relevant to psychiatric treatment of the accused including accounts given to treating health workers by the accused. The weight to be given to any expert's opinion, or parts of it, will depend on whether I accept those facts to have been proven.
Counsel each took the view that I could rely on what was recorded in those out of court accounts and in the documents relating to treatment as being the truth either on the basis that those accounts were admissions against interest or by reason of the documentary evidence provisions of the Evidence Act.
In a case concerning a plea of insanity, where the determination of the issue depends largely on the evidence of expert psychiatrists, a verdict should not be given contrary to that evidence if there is no fact or circumstance to contradict or cast doubt on the opinion of those experts: Hone v The State of Western Australia.[7]
[7] Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138 [13], [124] - [125].
In this case I have accepted the evidence of the experts because there is no fact or circumstance which would contradict or cast doubt on their opinions.
Legal principles relating to s 27(1) of the Criminal Code
Section 27 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
27.Insanity
(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 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.
'Mental impairment' is defined in s 1 of the Criminal Code to mean 'intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility'.
'Mental illness' is also defined in s 1 to mean 'an 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'.
Pursuant to s 27 a mental impairment can relieve a person of criminal responsibility if it has deprived the person of one of the relevant mental capacities or it can affect the extent of a person's criminal responsibility if the person was not deprived of any of the relevant mental capacities but was acting in accordance with delusional beliefs caused by the mental impairment.
In this case the accused primarily relies on s 27(1). His case with respect to each count on the indictment is that he suffered from a mental impairment which deprived him of the capacity to control his actions and also to know that he ought not do any of the acts which constitute the counts in the indictment.
There is also evidence relevant to count 2 on the indictment that as a result of that mental impairment the accused was affected by delusions that would enliven the operation of s 27(2) to reduce his criminal responsibility to the same extent had the real state of things been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe existed. Section 27(2) only has application to a person who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of s 27(1). I will come back to this.
Elements of the offences
Relevantly, the elements of count 1 and count 3 are that:
(a)the offender was the accused;
(b)the offender did an act;
(c)the act caused bodily harm; and
(d)when the offender did the act he did so with intent to harm.
The elements of count 2 are that:
(a)the offender was the accused;
(b)the complainant was wounded;
(c)the wound was caused by the act of the accused;
(d)the wounding was unlawful; and
(e)when the offender did the act he did so with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or to do some grievous bodily harm.
The elements of count 4 are that:
(a)the offender was the accused;
(b)the offender assaulted the complainant;
(c)the complainant was working in a hospital; and
(d)the assault was unlawful.
Findings of fact
In February 2020 Mr Silins was 45 years old. Since at least 1992, when he was 17, Mr Silins has been in contact with mental health services and required treatment for mental illness. With respect of his mental health, Mr Silins had contact with the Bentley Mills Street Centre outpatient clinic starting in 1992, was admitted to Bentley Hospital between 17 November 2001 until 18 December 2001, was admitted to Bentley Hospital from 11 July 2007 until 18 September 2007 and during part of that time was involuntarily detained, was admitted to Bentley Hospital from 12 August 2009 until 15 September 2009 and thereafter was under the treatment and care of private psychiatrists. By the end of that period the principal diagnosis was that Mr Silins suffered from schizoaffective disorder.[8]
[8] Exhibit 4, report of Dr Van Hattem dated 30 November 2021, pars 23 - 31.
On the occasions referred to, Mr Silins had been hospitalised with a combination of disordered thoughts, religious and paranoid delusions and was responding to unseen stimuli.[9] When unwell he behaved aggressively and damaged property and Dr Brett records prior instances of threatening behaviour to his parents and, while very unwell, physical aggression towards other patients and staff in hospital.
[9] Exhibit 4, report of Dr Van Hattem dated 30 November 2021, pars 28 - 30.
For a year prior to 29 February 2020 Mr Silins was under the care of Dr Chapman and as part of his treatment was prescribed Seroquel, a mood stabiliser and antipsychotic.
Mr Silins met at regular intervals with Dr Chapman but in the time leading up to 26 February 2020 Mr Silins and his mother, with whom he lived, came to appreciate he was relapsing into being very unwell. Mr Silins understood he needed additional treatment. On 26 February 2020 Mr Silins requested an appointment and saw Dr Chapman. He reported being stressed at work, that he had issues sleeping and he was having paranoid thoughts. Mr Silins' medication was increased to Seroquel 600 mg and he was prescribed temazepam to assist in sleeping. On 28th February 2020, Patricia Silins, Mr Silins' mother, called Dr Chapman's office and requested he be admitted to hospital.[10] Both Mr Silins and his mother knew he was becoming very unwell.
[10] Exhibit 5, psychiatric report of Dr Brett dated 21 November 2020, pars 53 - 55, 56.
With respect to count 1: on the basis of the amended statement of material facts,[11] the s 32 admissions,[12] the witness statement of Mr Tarr[13] and photographs of Mr Tarr[14] I find that:
[11] Exhibit 1.
[12] Exhibit 3.
[13] Exhibit 2, witness statement of Adam Tarr dated 1 March 2020, pages 1 - 6.
[14] Exhibit 2, pages 114 - 129.
1.Mr Silins was living with his mother in Cloverdale and Mr Tarr was his next door neighbour.
2.Between 1.00 am and 3.00 am on the morning of 29 February 2020 Mr Tarr was at home and heard his dog growling and later barking. He heard something in the backyard near the back fence and went out to find a fence panel had been broken between his property and the Silins' property. The police were called to report the incident.
3.At 4.09 am police advised Mr Tarr that there had been another possible offence next door being that a car was stolen. At around 4.30 am Mr Tarr saw Mrs Silins and Mr Silins at the front of his house. They were walking towards a vehicle parked on the island on Abernethy Road.
4.Mr Tarr went outside and approached Mrs Silins and Mr Silins and asked if everything was okay. Mr Tarr told Mrs Silins that his fence was damaged and Mrs Silins told him that a number of keys had been stolen from her house. During this Mr Silins was seated next to a tree, 1 m - 2 m behind Mr Tarr. Mr Tarr observed Mr Silins saying things that he could not make out and heard him making weird noises. Mr Tarr observed that Mr Silins did not seem like he was in a right state of mind.
5.Without warning, Mr Silins stood up from where he was sitting and ran directly at Mr Tarr. Mr Tarr started walking backwards onto the road and held his hands up in front of himself and said he was only making sure they were all right.
6.Mr Silins charged at Mr Tarr knocking him down and Mr Tarr landed on his back on the road. Mr Tarr managed to get back to his feet but Mr Silins came at him again, had Mr Tarr in a headlock and placed one hand around Mr Tarr's neck and pushed his thumbs into the larynx area. A struggle ensued. Mr Silins and Mr Tarr both went to ground.
7.Mrs Silins tried to intervene but Mr Silins swung his free hand and hit her. She then left the immediate area but kept telling Mr Silins to stop. Mr Silins got hold of Mr Tarr's right arm and placed his mouth around the forearm. He began to move his mouth along Mr Tarr's forearm and started growling like a dog.
8.Mr Tarr was able to raise up his legs and push Mr Silins off him, get to his feet and run over his fence and back inside his home. Mr Tarr rang the police.
9.Mr Tarr sustained bruises, lacerations, scratches and swelling to his neck including a nasty scrape to his right hip.
10.I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Silins did the acts towards Mr Tarr described in 5 - 8 above, those acts caused injury to Mr Tarr and that Mr Tarr's injuries were sufficient to interfere with health or comfort so as to amount to bodily harm.
With respect to count 2: on the basis of the amended statement of material facts,[15] the s 32 admissions,[16] the witness statement of Mr Meyerhoff,[17] photographs of Mr Meyerhoff and the scene,[18] the witness statement of Officer Ishak[19] and the witness statement of Officer Haigh[20] I find that:
[15] Exhibit 1.
[16] Exhibit 3.
[17] Exhibit 2, witness statement of Michael David Meyerhoff dated 4 March 2020, pages 7 - 13.
[18] Exhibit 2, pages 130 -138, 141, 145 - 161.
[19] Exhibit 2, witness statement of Imran Aidil Ishak dated 2 May 2020, pages 29 - 34.
[20] Exhibit 2, witness statement of Rhys Mitchell Haigh dated 28 April 2020, pages 35 - 40.
1.On 29 February 2020 Mr Meyerhoff was 65 years of age and was working as a locksmith. Mrs Silins requested that he attend at 326 Kew Street Cloverdale to change some locks because keys had been stolen from that house.
2.At around 12.12 pm Mr Meyerhoff started work on the front door lock but was then advised by Mrs Silins that she had no money to pay him and he would have to come back. Mr Meyerhoff then proceeded to give a quote of $300 for the replacement of the locks.
3.Mrs Silins called out to Mr Silins to ask if he had any money. At that point in time Mr Meyerhoff and Mrs Silins were inside the house. Mr Silins came out of his bedroom and stared strangely at Mr Meyerhoff. Mr Silins did not respond to his mother but Mrs Silins nevertheless indicated that Mr Meyerhoff should go ahead and change the locks.
4.Mr Meyerhoff walked towards the front door and just before he got there Mr Silins approached Mr Meyerhoff from behind and put both hands around his neck. Mr Silins began to strangle Mr Meyerhoff using his fingers to constrict Mr Meyerhoff's throat by applying pressure to the larynx area of Mr Meyerhoff's neck.
5.Mr Meyerhoff struggled through the front door trying to get away. Mr Meyerhoff managed to get outside and yelled to Mr Silins 'What are you doing? Stop, stop, stop'. Mr Silins said 'You're scum, I'm going to fucking kill you'.
6.Mr Meyerhoff managed to drag himself and Mr Silins to Mr Meyerhoff's van parked in the driveway. Mr Meyerhoff tried to find something to defend himself with but Mr Silins grabbed a hammer from the van. The men struggled over the hammer and during the struggle both fell to the ground. Mr Meyerhoff was on top of Mr Silins while the struggle for the hammer continued. Mr Silins swung the hammer three times hitting Mr Meyerhoff on the top of his head. The blows, while heavy, were not full swings because Mr Meyerhoff had his hands on the hammer.
7.As this happened Mr Silins said 'I'm going to fucking kill you'. Mrs Silins tried to intervene to drag Mr Silins off Mr Meyerhoff. Mr Meyerhoff was able to stand and grabbed another tool from the van and by then was also in possession of the hammer. Mr Silins was standing near his mother. Mr Meyerhoff tried to use his mobile phone to call police.
8.Police were in attendance but were parked at a distance from the house. They were there because they were waiting for a mental health assessment team from Bentley Hospital to arrive. The mental health assessment team had been called as a consequence of the earlier incident with Mr Tarr.
9.Constables Ishak and Haigh saw Mr Meyerhoff back away from the house with a significant injury to his head. They then saw Mr Silins charge at Mr Meyerhoff and heard him say 'You're dead'. Mr Silins tackled Mr Meyerhoff to the ground and Constables Ishak and Haigh ran towards them and saw they were struggling for the hammer. Constable Haigh deployed his taser which subdued Mr Silins who was then placed in handcuffs.
10.Mr Silins was conveyed to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. He had some physical injuries from being tasered and also required a mental health assessment. Mr Silins was released into police custody without a mental health assessment.
11.I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Silins did the acts towards Mr Meyerhoff described in 4 - 7 and 9 above, that as a consequence Mr Meyerhoff suffered an injury to his head which broke the skin, penetrated below the epidermis (the outer layer of the skin) and caused bleeding. That injury was sufficient to amount to a wound within the meaning of that term at law.[21]
[21] Devinev The Queen [1982] Tas R 155; (1982) 8 A Crim R 45.
With respect to count 3: on the basis of the amended statement of material facts,[22] the s 32 admissions,[23] and the witness statement of Ms Valentine,[24] then a police auxiliary officer (PAO), I find that:
1.On 29 February 2020 at 3.30 pm PAO Valentine was on duty at Cannington Police Station. Mr Silins was brought to the Cannington Police Station along with a clearance from the hospital that he was fit to be in custody.
2.At that time Mr Silins appeared calm and had appeared calm since being at the hospital earlier. Mr Silins was compliant during intake into police custody and was placed in an observation cell. He answered questions with respect to his health and welfare and during questioning denied he had thoughts of self‑harm but he did state that 'he only wanted to hurt other people'. He was looking at PAO Valentine at that time he said that.
3.Mr Silins was wearing only a pair of black shorts and PAO Valentine located a replacement shirt for him and went to open the door to the observation cell to hand it to him. As the door was opened Mr Silins immediately went for PAO Valentine and placed one hand around her throat applying pressure to the larynx area of her neck. He used his other hand to grab PAO Valentine's hair and pulled it back forcefully. Mr Silins and PAO Valentine then fell to the floor with three other PAOs trying to intervene.
4.Mr Silins opened his mouth and bit PAO Valentine's ear and scalp while squeezing her jaw with his hand. The struggle continued in the custodial area during which time Mr Silins continued to pull violently at PAO Valentine's hair. His grip on her hair was maintained for 15 - 20 seconds before he released his hold. The duress alarm was activated and other officers came to assist.
5.Mr Silins was restrained and secured by other police officers. PAO Valentine and another officer, PAO Mayfield, were taken to hospital by ambulance. PAO Valentine sustained numerous injuries including soft tissue damage to her skull, bruising, scratches, neck strain and a laceration to her left ear. She also damaged her medial collateral ligament (MCL) during the incident. PAO Valentine was treated for blood-borne diseases including HIV and hepatitis and had to continue that medication until it was known whether Mr Silins suffered from those conditions. PAO Valentine did not contract a disease from this incident.
6.After the incident, Mr Silins was returned to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and admitted as an involuntary patient.
[22] Exhibit 1.
[23] Exhibit 3.
[24] Exhibit 2, witness statement of Katie Marie Valentine, pages 14 - 17.
I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Silins did the acts towards PAO Valentine described in 3 and 4 above, caused PAO Valentine injury as described in 5 above, and that PAO Valentine's injuries were sufficient to interfere with health or comfort so as to amount to bodily harm.
With respect to count 3: on the basis of the amended statement of material facts,[25] the s 32 admissions,[26] and the witness statement of Mr Hua,[27] I find that:
1.On 1 March 2020 Mr Hua was a security officer and was working at the Frankland Centre, an authorised hospital, within the Graylands Health Campus.
2.Mr Silins had appeared at the Northbridge Magistrates Court that day and was remanded to the Frankland Centre for a mental health assessment.
3.At around 6.50 pm Mr Silins entered into a secure room at that facility where he was to be processed. Mr Silins was at that time escorted by two Western Australian police officers and Mr Hua.
4.Without warning Mr Silins lunged at Mr Hua and attempted to grab his neck. In the course of doing so Mr Silins pushed Mr Hua up against a door causing pain and discomfort.
5.Mr Hua pushed Mr Silins backed to the middle of the room where another security officer and the police were able to gain control and restrain Mr Silins. Mr Silins was then taken to the secure area of the hospital.
6.I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Hua was at that time working in a hospital, Mr Silins did the acts towards Mr Hua described in 4 and 5 above and that those acts constituted an assault.
[25] Exhibit 1.
[26] Exhibit 3.
[27] Exhibit 2, witness statement of Peter Hua dated 15 November 2022, pages 334 - 335.
On the basis of the amended statement of material facts [28] and the s 32 admissions,[29] on 3 March 2020, Mr Silins was tested for drugs and was found to only have benzodiazepine in his system. This is because he had been given diazepam during his admission. Mr Silins was negative for all other drugs and the last reported use of any illicit drugs by him was in 2009.
[28] Exhibit 1.
[29] Exhibit 3.
Mr Silins remained in custody at the Frankland Centre for almost seven months. On 29 October 2020 he was granted bail. He then transferred to Bentley Hospital and continued to receive specialist treatment and follow-up in the community until his voluntary return to the Frankland Centre a day or so before trial.
During the course of the trial I was able to observe Mr Silins. Mr Silins is a tall and solidly built man. He was accompanied and supported by mental health professionals from the Frankland Centre during the course of the trial. He appeared to me to be fairly heavily medicated and slow in his affect but was calm and attentive. When, during the trial, he did speak directly to me, Mr Silins was appropriately respectful of the trial process but was keen to ensure that I understood that he had not used any illicit drugs since 2009. I have no difficulty accepting his assurance to me in that regard.
Facts relevant to Mr Silins' mental state and findings in respect to s 27 Criminal Code
As I have said above, I have had the benefit of the reports of Dr Van Hattem and Dr Brett, both forensic psychiatrists, the concession by counsel that I can and should treat matters of fact recorded in their reports as being true and the oral testimony of each of them. There was no dispute between them about Mr Silins' state of mental impairment, in other words his diagnosable mental illness, or the effect of that diagnosis on his capacity to control his actions and his capacity to know, in the moment, that he ought not to do any of the acts the subject of charges on the indictment.
I pause here to note, that when he prepared his report Dr Van Hattem was not aware of the facts pertaining to count 4 on the indictment. He had been provided, a little prior to trial, with the statement of material facts and the witness statement of Mr Hua as they pertained to count 4. Dr Van Hattem confirmed that the conclusions that he had reached about Mr Silins' mental health were equally applicable to count 4, which occurred the day after counts 1 - 3.
Further, in the witness box, each of Dr Van Hattem and Dr Brett were asked about the reports prepared by each other and confirmed their agreement with the conclusions that the other had drawn.
The primary evidence and my findings with respect to Mr Silins and whether he is criminally responsible for his acts as pleaded in counts 1 - 4 are as follows:
1.Mr Silins has, since at least the age of 17, suffered from a state of mental impairment. In the past his mental illness has been various documented as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar affective disorder. There is considerable overlap between the presenting symptoms of each of those disorders. Mr Silins fully demonstrates features of both and Dr Van Hattem explained to the court that to be diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder under the guidelines of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM‑5) a person needs to meet the full diagnostic criteria for both schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder.
2.Each of Dr Van Hattem and Dr Brett have fully taken into account the materials with which they were briefed[30] and have met with Mr Silins and his mother. Each diagnosed Mr Silins with schizoaffective disorder.
[30] Which included the statement of material facts for the offences, the witness statements of Mr Tarr, Mr Meyerhoff, PAO Valentine and Mr Hua, along with WA Mental Health database which included the summary letter from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital department of emergency medicine for admission commencing 1.34 pm on 29 February 2020, triage notes from Bentley adult mental health created at 3.04 pm on 29 February 2020, summary letter from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital department of emergency medicine for admission commencing 5.59 pm on 29 February 2020, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital emergency department medical notes covering the period from 29 February 2020 until 1 March 2020, pathology results dated from 29 February 2020 until 25 January 2021, discharge summary from Bentley Hospital dated 18 December 2001, discharge summary from Bentley Hospital dated 18 September 2007, discharge summary from Bentley Hospital dated 15 September 2009, discharge summary from Bentley Hospital dated 18 December 2020. In addition Dr Brett liaised with Mr Silins' treating team and his private psychiatrist Dr M Chapman.
3.I find that Mr Silins was, for many years prior to and as at 29 February and 1 March 2020, suffering from a mental impairment, schizoaffective disorder.
4.Mr Silins mental health had been degenerating in the period leading up to 29 February 2020. He was suffering an acute relapse of his schizoaffective disorder in the form of a severe manic episode with psychotic features. Mr Silins was unable to sleep and had increasing paranoid delusions which included that the water in the house was poisoned, and his brother-in-law intended to harm him having already discharged a firearm at Mr Silins' head, but that Jesus had prevented the bullet from harming him.
5.Mr Silins was also suffering auditory hallucinations, hearing voices, for a period of time. He was disorganised in his behaviour and thoughts with increasing agitation and impulsivity.
6.By 29 February 2020 Mr Silins was floridly unwell. This means it was obvious to ordinary people in the community, such as Mr Tarr and Mr Meyerhoff, that Mr Silins was mentally unwell. Both Mr Silins and his mother were both also aware that was the case and had sought to have Mr Silins admitted to hospital the day prior to his offending on 29 February 2020.
7.Mr Silins could not explain his offending against Mr Tarr other than to say that he was full of adrenaline. He had lots of energy. His thoughts were all over the place. He felt paranoia regarding Mr Tarr and was having continued auditory hallucinations. After he assaulted Mr Tarr he went into his bedroom, broke some things and heard a gunshot which he believed was his brother‑in‑law trying to kill him.
8.Mr Silins also then believed the water in the house was poisoned and so showered in the garden. Later when Mr Meyerhoff, the locksmith, arrived, Mr Silins came to believe that the fee he proposed was not a 'round' number but also that Mr Meyerhoff was a relative of his brother-in-law who meant him further harm.
9.When at Cannington Police Station Mr Silins came to believe that PAO Valentine was laughing at him.
10.Mr Silins did not recall attacking Mr Hua as by that time, or soon after, he was heavily medicated.
11.Mr Silins, because of the severe manic episode, his consequential lack of sleep, his paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations, was severely impulsive and disordered in his thoughts. This meant that he was unable to accurately assess situations and weigh information. I find that Mr Silins was in such a state of mental impairment that he was deprived of the capacity to control his actions within the meaning of those terms in s 27(1) of the Criminal Code (WA).
12.I also find that Mr Silins, for the same reasons, had become so impulsive that he had an inability to consider his actions before acting and therefore was deprived of his capacity to know that he ought not do the acts that constitute counts 1 - 4 within the meaning of those terms in s 27(1) of the Criminal Code.
13.Accordingly, Mr Silins is not criminally responsible for the acts which constitute counts 1, 2, 3 or 4 on the indictment by reason of unsoundness of mind within the meaning of those terms in s 27(1) of the Criminal Code.
14.In addition, Dr Van Hattem, pointed to the fact that Mr Silins formed a specific delusional belief with respect to Mr Meyerhoff. Mr Silins thought that Mr Meyerhoff was related to Mr Silins' brother-in-law and was at the house to hurt Mr Silins. Dr Van Hattem was of the view that that specific delusional belief may have some application with respect to s 27(2) of the Criminal Code.
15.It is not necessary for me to consider that matter further because s 27(2) is by its terms only to apply to 'a person who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of subsection (1)'.
Reasons for relapse into acute mental illness are varied but include stress, the use of illicit substances and adverse situations. In Mr Silins' case he had identified to his private psychiatrist that he was under stress prior to this offending and each of Dr Van Hattem and Dr Brett considered that was the most likely a factor in Mr Silins' relapse. Having accepted the results of pathology tests showing no illicit drug use and Mr Silins' assurances that he had not used drugs since 2009, there is no factual foundation for me to consider s 28 of the Criminal Code.
Verdicts and orders
Given my findings that Mr Silins was not criminally responsible for his actions, I now turn my mind to what orders I should make with respect to Mr Silins as a consequence of the judgements of acquittal on account of unsoundness of mind which I have entered.
Pursuant to s 21(a) of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act in combination with the operation of sch 1 to that Act I am obliged to make a custody order in respect of Mr Silins.
By reason of s 25(2) of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act and because Mr Silins was, at the time of verdict, admitted to an authorised hospital, Mr Silins will be detained at the Franklin Centre until the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board reviews and determines the place where he is to be further detained.
Finally, I wish to make it clear, that I accept counsel's submissions on Mr Silins' behalf that notwithstanding that he is not criminally responsible for his actions on 29 February and 1 March 2020, Mr Silins is deeply regretful for his actions and that prior to that date he, together with his mother, had taken steps to try to address his relapse into acute mental illness.
I confirm the judgments of acquittal by reason of unsoundness of mind entered in relation to each charge on the indictment and the custody order made on 26 November 2022. The effect of the custody order is that Mr Silins will be detained until released by an order of the Governor.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.
MB
Associate to her Honour Judge Gillan
8 DECEMBER 2022
6
4