The State of Western Australia v St Clair Honey
[2022] WASC 203
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- ST CLAIR HONEY [2022] WASC 203
CORAM: CORBOY J
HEARD: 1 - 3 JUNE 2022
DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2022
FILE NO/S: INS 39 of 2021
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
DAMIEN RHYS ST CLAIR HONEY
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal Law - Trial by judge alone - Murder - Whether accused of unsound mind - Whether accused in a state of mental impairment - Whether accused deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts that caused the death of the victim - Expert psychiatric evidence that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and lacked relevant capacity
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 27, s 279
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 21
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118, s 119, s 120
Result:
Accused not guilty of the murder on account of unsoundness of mind
Custody order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Prosecution | : | Mr R Owen & Ms S McCallion |
| Accused | : | Mr A E Elliott |
Solicitors:
| Prosecution | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
| Accused | : | Paxman & Paxman Criminal Lawyers |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Radford (1985) 20 A Crim R 388
Riley v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 190; (2005) 30 WAR 525
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 538
The State of Western Australia v Djurasovic [2021] WASC 406
The State of Western Australia v Haast [2020] WASC 161
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 Lang [No 2] [2016] WASC 206
The State of Western Australia v Taylor [2021] WASC 470
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254
CORBOY J:
The charge, plea and verdict
Damien Rhys St Clair Honey is charged that on 19 January 2021, at Armadale, he murdered Adam Curt St Clair Honey. He pleaded not guilty to the charge on account of unsoundness of mind.[1]
[1] CPA s 126(1)(d).
Mr St Clair Honey applied for a trial by judge alone pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (CPA). The application was allowed in the interests of justice having regard to the following matters:
(a)The sole issue to be determined in the trial is whether Mr St Clair Honey is criminally responsible for the act of killing his brother, Adam St Clair Honey (Adam) - that is, whether he was of unsound mind at the time of doing that act (s 27(1) of the Criminal Code);
(b)there is no factual issue to be decided that requires the application of objective community standards;
(c)Mr St Clair Honey admits the facts necessary to prove the elements of the offence of murder, apart from whether the killing of Adam was unlawful;
(d)Mr St Clair Honey does not dispute the evidence contained in the prosecution brief;
(e)the only witnesses required to give oral evidence are Dr Siva Bala and Dr Adam Brett (forensic psychiatrists who provided opinions on the issues raised by s 27(1) of the Code);
(f)the expert evidence is complex;
(g)the State did not oppose the application and did not advance any reason why it was not in the interests of justice for an order to be made under s 118 CPA.
The cause of Adam's death was a severe head injury with multiple lacerations and extensive comminuted skull fracturing.[2] Mr St Clair Honey admits, pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), that he caused the head injury by striking Adam repeatedly with a hammer. He does not dispute the evidence led by the State about the circumstances in which Adam was killed or his mental state at the time. Statements made by the State's witnesses were read into evidence by consent and without Mr St Clair Honey requiring any witness be made available for cross-examination. Accordingly, the only substantive issue to be determined in the trial is Mr St Clair Honey's criminal responsibility for his admitted acts.
[2] Confidential report to the Coroner dated 7 February 2021 - exhibit 8A.
It is for me to determine whether Mr St Clair Honey is criminally responsible for his acts. However, the State submits that it is open to find Mr St Clair Honey not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind; Mr St Clair Honey submits that this is the only available verdict on the evidence that has been presented. Those submissions accord with my conclusion.
There was no material difference in the opinions expressed by Dr Brett and Dr Bala on whether Mr St Clair Honey was in a state of mental impairment at the time he killed Adam and whether he lacked one of the capacities specified by s 27(1) of the Code. Dr Brett and Dr Bala agreed that Mr St Clair Honey was suffering from a mental illness at the time he killed Adam (schizophrenia), as a result of which he lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to have hit his brother several times to the head with a hammer. They differed on whether Mr St Clair Honey was also deprived of the capacity to control his actions but it is not necessary to make findings about that difference to reach a verdict.
I find Mr St Clair Honey not guilty of the charge of murder on account of unsoundness of mind. I enter a judgment of acquittal on account of unsoundness of mind.[3]
[3] CPA s 147(2).
Trial by judge alone
The conduct of the trial by a judge sitting alone is governed by Pt 4, div 7 CPA.[4] Relevantly, s 119(1) provides that in a trial by judge alone the judge must apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury. Further, s 120 of the CPA states:
(1)In a trial by a judge alone -
(a)the judge may make any findings and give any verdict that a jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury; and
(b) any finding or verdict of the judge has, for all purposes, the same effect as a finding or verdict of a jury.
(2)The judgment of the judge in a trial by a judge alone must include the principles of law that he or she has applied and the findings of fact on which he or she has relied.
[4] The parties did not request that I consider applying s 93 CPA and I found it unnecessary to seek their consent to the application of the section.
In AK v The State of Western Australia,[5] Gummow and Hayne JJ observed that the effect of s 120(2) CPA is ordinarily to require a trial judge to identify and record the elements of the offence in question and outline which of those elements are in issue. It is also necessary that the reasons contain a statement of the principles of law that have been applied, the findings of fact that are made and 'the reasoning process linking them and justifying the [findings of fact] and ultimately, the verdict that is reached'.[6]
[5] AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438. See also the reasons of Steytler P in Riley v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 190; (2005) 30 WAR 525.
[6] Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250 [28].
The offence of murder
Section 279(1) of the Criminal Code provides that:
If a person unlawfully kills another person and -
(a)the person intends to cause the death of the person killed or another person; or
(b)the person intends to cause a bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, the life of the person killed or another person; or
(c)the death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life,
The person is guilty of murder.
Section 268 of the Code provides that it is unlawful to kill a person unless the killing is authorised or justified or excused by law. Section 270 of the Code provides that any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person.
The State did not allege that Adam was killed in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose. Accordingly, to prove that Mr St Clair Honey is guilty of the offence of murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following matters:
(a)Mr St Clair Honey did an act or acts which caused, directly or indirectly, and by any means whatever, the death of Adam;
(b)the killing of Adam was unlawful;
(c)Mr St Clair Honey did the act or acts that caused, directly or indirectly, the death of Adam with the intention of:
(i)causing the death of Adam; or
(ii)causing a bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life of Adam.
Section 27 - onus and standard of proof
Section 26 of the Criminal Code provides that every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and to have been of sound mind at any time which comes in question, until the contrary is proved. Section 27(1) provides that:
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.
Section 1 of the Code defines:
(a)'mental impairment' to mean 'an intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility';
(b)'mental illness' to mean 'pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of short or long duration and whether permanent or temporary' – the definition expressly excludes 'a condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary stimuli';
(c)'criminally responsible' to mean 'liable to punishment as for an offence'.
The effect of s 26 of the Code is that Mr St Clair Honey carries the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he is not criminally responsible for his acts of repeatedly hitting Adam to the head with a hammer. The effect of s 27(1) of the Code is that Mr St Clair Honey's acts will be excused in law if he was in such a state of mental impairment at the time of acting that he was deprived of one of the capacities specified by the section. Whether Mr St Clair Honey was in such a state is the only substantive matter to be decided; that is, whether Mr St Clair Honey's acts of repeatedly hitting Adam with a hammer were unlawful is the only element of the offence of murder that is in issue. Mr St Clair Honey otherwise admits the elements of causation and intention (although, the element of intention only falls to be decided if it is found that Mr St Clair Honey has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that he was of unsound mind at the relevant time[7]).
[7] Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254 [25] (Kennedy J).
The evidence in the trial
Witnesses
The State called and read into evidence statements provided by the following witnesses:
(a)Trudi Marie St Clair Honey - Ms St Clair Honey is the mother of Mr St Clair Honey and Adam. Ms St Clair Honey provided evidence about Mr St Clair Honey's personal history and events relevant to his mental state as at 19 January 2021.
(b)Jemma Joyce Blurton - Ms Blurton was in a relationship with Mr St Clair Honey for approximately four years. She stated that they separated around Christmas 2020. However, she continued to interact with Mr St Clair Honey after that time. She gave evidence of events leading up to 19 January 2021 which were relevant to the circumstances in which Adam was killed and Mr St Clair Honey's mental state at the time.
(c)Anthony Charles Blurton - Mr Blurton is the brother of Ms Blurton. Mr Blurton stayed at Mr St Clair Honey's house between Sunday, 17 January and sometime shortly prior to midnight, 18/19 January 2021.
(d)Dean Anthony Oltmans - Mr Oltmans is the step-brother of Mr St Clair Honey and Adam. Mr Oltmans was staying with Ms St Clair Honey on 18 January 2021. He gave evidence about Mr St Clair Honey and Adam visiting their mother's house on the evening of 18 January.
(e)Richard Noel St Clair Honey - Richard St Clair Honey is the father of Mr St Clair Honey and Adam. He and Ms St Clair Honey are separated; he now lives with his partner, Noeleen Hayward, in Golden Bay. He gave evidence about Mr St Clair Honey arriving at his house at about 7.45 am on 19 January 2021.
(f)Noeleen Hayward - Ms Hayward also gave evidence about Mr St Clair Honey's visit on the morning of 19 January 2021.
(g)Sharon Joy Stewart - Ms Stewart is the godmother of Mr St Clair Honey. She gave evidence about a visit by Mr St Clair Honey and Adam during the night of 18 January 2021.
(h)Harrison James Stewart – Mr Stewart is the son of Ms Stewart. He also gave evidence of the visit by Mr St Clair Honey and Adam on 18 January 2021.
(i)Elizabeth Ann Westbrook - Ms Westbrook was a neighbour of Mr St Clair Honey. She gave evidence of various incidents that she observed or heard involving Mr St Clair Honey and Ms Blurton while they were residing at Mr St Clair Honey's house in Armadale. She also gave evidence of events that occurred on 18 and 19 January 2021.
(j)Laura Amy De Snoo - Ms De Snoo was also a neighbour of Mr St Clair Honey. She gave evidence of an incident that she heard involving a male and female arguing at the front of Mr St Clair Honey's house at about 12.30 am on 19 January 2021.
(k)Gordon De Snoo - Mr De Snoo is the father of Ms De Snoo. He gave evidence of an incident involving Mr St Clair Honey in early January 2021.
(l)Constantine Mathew - Mr Mathew is a real estate agent employed by an agency located in Kelmscott. He gave evidence of dealing with Mr St Clair Honey on 7 and 8 January 2021 in relation to the possible sale of Mr St Clair Honey's house.
(m)Robert John Garnett - Mr Garnett is a station officer at the Armadale Fire Station. He attended a fire at Mr St Clair Honey's house which Mr St Clair Honey lit in the early hours of 19 January 2021.
(n)Simone Paardekooper - Ms Paardekooper is a station officer at the Maddington Fire Station. She also attended the fire at Mr St Clair Honey's house.
(o)Shane John Toovey - Mr Toovey is a paramedic. He attended at Mr St Clair Honey's house shortly after 8 am, 19 January 2021. He examined Adam's body and signed a life extinct certificate at 8.21 am.
(p)Jasdeep Dhaliwal - Senior Constable Dhaliwal is attached to the Armadale Police Station. He was one of several police officers who attended Mr St Clair Honey's house shortly prior to 8 am, 19 January 2021.
(q)Marie Cook - Police Constable Cook is attached to the Mandurah Police Station. She arrested Mr St Clair Honey at Richard St Clair Honey's house at about 3 pm, 19 January 2021.
(r)Michael Stanley Smirk - Detective Senior Constable Smirk gave evidence of inquiries he made on 19 January 2021 and of an electronically recorded interview conducted with Mr St Clair Honey commencing at 1.34 am, 20 January 2021.
(s)Louise Dawn Pitts - Detective Sergeant Pitts was the investigating officer for the investigation into Adam's death. She conducted an electronically recorded interview with Mr St Clair Honey commencing at 6.22 pm on 20 January 2021.
(t)Donna Jayne Lee - Ms Lee is a nurse who took a sample of Mr St Clair Honey's blood on the morning of 20 January 2021.
(u)Joseph John Gonzalez - Senior Constable Gonzalez was attached to the Armadale Police Station. He gave evidence about speaking to Mr St Clair Honey on 7 and 10 January 2021.
(v)Rodrigo Carpinteiro Peres - Police Constable Carpinteiro Peres was attached to the Armadale Police Station. He gave evidence about two incidents on 10 January 2021 during which he spoke to Mr St Clair Honey.
(w)Christian Anthony Evas - Police Constable Evas was attached to the Armadale Police Station. He gave evidence of speaking to Mr St Clair Honey at the police station late in the afternoon of 10 January 2021.
(x)Walter Alfredo Lara Rivas – Constable Lara Rivas was attached to the Armadale Police Station. He gave evidence of attending Mr St Clair Honey's house at about 12.45 am, 19 January 2021.
Dr Brett and Dr Bala gave oral evidence in addition to their reports being received as exhibits. In substance, they differed in their opinions only on one matter - whether Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to control his actions as a result of a mental impairment. It is not necessary to resolve that difference as Dr Brett and Dr Bala agreed, for the purpose of s 27(1) of the Code, that Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts that caused Adam's death. They also agreed that Mr St Clair Honey was suffering from a mental illness when he did those acts.
Exhibits
The following documents were received as exhibits in the trial:
(a)formal admissions made by Mr St Clair Honey pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) (exhibit1);
(b)agreed statement of relevant events dated 3 February 2022 (exhibit 2);
(c)book of additional medical records (exhibit 3);
(d)life extinct certificate dated 19 January 2021 (exhibit 4);
(e)USB stick containing four audio visual files (exhibit 5);
(f)Arson Squad report dated 8 March 2021, prepared by Detective Senior Constable Pearsall (exhibit 6);
(g)bloodstain pattern analysis report dated 21 April 2022, prepared by Sergeant Spivey (exhibit 7);
(h)confidential report to the Coroner dated 7 February 2021 and supplementary report to the Coroner dated 3 December 2021 (exhibit 8A and exhibit 8B);
(i)chain of custody report in respect of a biological sample dated 20 January 2021 (exhibit 9);
(j)ChemCentre blood sample analysis report dated 5 March 2021 (exhibit 10);
(k)curriculum vitae and report of Dr Adam Brett dated 4 August 2021 (exhibit 11A and 11B);
(l)report of Dr Siva Bala dated 13 December 2021(exhibit 12).
The circumstances in which Adam St Clair Honey was killed
As noted above, the circumstances in which Adam St Clair Honey was killed were not in issue. They are summarised in the agreed statement of relevant events. I make findings according to the statement:
1.Damien Rhys St Clair Honey (the accused) was born on 7 July 1988. As at 19 January 2021 the accused resided at 39 Jannali Way, Armadale, Western Australia.
2.Adam Curt St Clair Honey (the deceased) was born on 22 April 1990 and is the younger brother of the accused.
3.On Monday, 18 January 2021 the accused was at his home address with the deceased.
4.During the evening the deceased assisted the accused with partially shaving his head at the request of the accused. The deceased went to bed and fell asleep at an unknown time late that evening.
5.Whilst the deceased slept, the accused altered the appearance of his vehicle in his garage, a white Holden Rodeo utility, registered number 9BA 209, by painting the tray of his utility which had been red, a cream colour, altered the front number plate of his vehicle and shaved the rest of his head.
6.In the early hours of the morning of 19 January 2021, the accused heard the deceased snoring in his bed and believed that he was asleep. The accused used a hammer to repeatedly hit the deceased to the head, approximately seven times, killing him.[8]
7.The accused took his own clothes off and placed them on the deceased along with methylated spirits before setting the deceased alight with a lighter.
8.The accused washed down the hammer with a washcloth in the rear patio area and placed the hammer in an air filter in an adjacent room to where the deceased was killed.
9.The accused placed his socks, the washcloth and some rubbish in the fireplace at the house and lit that up using firelighters. The accused turned on the gas stove control knobs omitting gas into the house, before putting his pet dog in the utility he had altered and leaving the property in the vehicle.
10.At 3.05 pm on Tuesday 19 January 2021 the accused was arrested at 58 Marillana Drive, Golden Bay. The accused was conveyed to the Armadale Police Station.
11.At 1.34 am on 20 January 2021 the accused was interviewed by Police at Armadale Police Station.
12.At 6.22 pm on 20 January 2021 the accused was further interviewed by Police at East Perth Lockup.
[8] The accused made this admission in his recorded interview with Police on 20 January 2021, at TB 238-239.
Events leading up to 19 January 2021
Mr St Clair Honey accepted the evidence of the witnesses called by the State. Both parties also accepted that the information recorded in the book of additional medical records (exhibit 3) was accurate. I make the following findings about events leading up to 19 January 2021 from the evidence given by the State's witnesses and the information provided by exhibit 3:
(1)On 7 January 2021, Ms St Clair Honey received a message from Ms Blurton stating that Mr St Clair Honey's vehicle had broken down. Ms Blurton contacted Mr St Clair Honey and ascertained he was in Waroona. Ms St Clair Honey drove to Waroona and met Mr St Clair Honey. Ms St Clair Honey thought Mr St Clair Honey was experiencing a psychotic episode. He had cuts on his legs and told his mother he had tripped over some barbed wire while he had been running with the bulls and trying to find the Holy Grail.[9]
[9] Ms St Clair Honey, ts 32.
(2)Ms St Clair Honey subsequently contacted the police. On the afternoon on 7 January 2021, Senior Constable Sykes and Senior Constable Gonzalez conducted a welfare check by speaking to Mr St Clair Honey. He told the police officers he was 'pretty good' but then stated he was being set up by a group of individuals 'for that Rebels dude' – a reference the officers took to be to Mr Nick Martin. Mr St Clair Honey also stated that he had no intention of hurting himself but if anything happened to him it was 'a set up'. Senior Constable Sykes and Senior Constable Gonzalez concluded that Mr St Clair Honey was not a risk to himself or others.[10]
[10] Senior Constable Gonzalez, ts 81.
(3)On the afternoon of 7 January 2021, Mr St Clair Honey attended the business premises of O'Neil Real Estate and spoke to Mr Mathew about the possibility of selling his house. Mr St Clair Honey was sweating and appeared to be uncomfortable. He said people were after him; he needed to sell his house; he had an online gambling addiction and he was obsessed. Mr Mathew thought his interaction with Mr St Clair Honey was strange.[11] Mr St Clair Honey advised Mr Mathew the next day that he had changed his mind about selling his house.
[11] Mr Mathew, ts 62.
(4)Police officers (Constables Carpinteiro Pere and Cross) again spoke to Mr St Clair Honey on the afternoon of 10 January 2021. They were not concerned about his mental health as a result of their discussion with him.[12]
[12] Constable Carpinteiro Pere, ts 83 - 84.
(5)Mr St Clair Honey attended the Armadale Police Station later in the afternoon of 10 January 2021. Constable Evas spoke to Mr St Clair Honey. He described Mr St Clair Honey as mumbling, distracted and struggling to maintain concentration or speak in complete sentences. He appeared to be very tired. Mr St Clair Honey said he wanted to confess to shooting Mr Nick Martin.
(6)Constable Evas contacted Ms St Clair Honey. She advised that Mr St Clair Honey could be psychotic; Constable Evas responded by saying he would encourage Mr St Clair Honey to present at Armadale Hospital.[13]
[13] Constable Evas, ts 86.
(7)Constables Cross and Carpinteiro Pere also spoke to Mr St Clair Honey at the Armadale Police Station. They returned to Mr St Clair Honey's house and spoke to Ms Burton. She advised that Mr St Clair Honey had a mental health plan with Rockingham Mental Health and was doing well. She agreed to go to the Armadale Police Station.[14]
[14] Constable Carpinteiro Pere, ts 84.
(8)Mr St Clair Honey again spoke to several police officers after Ms Blurton arrived at the police station. He denied any intention to harm himself or anyone else and said he was tired and hungry. Ms Blurton agreed to take him home. The officers were not concerned that Mr St Clair Honey presented a risk to himself or others.[15]
[15] Constable Carpinteiro Pere, ts 84 - 85; Senior Constable Gonzalez, ts 82.
(9)Mr St Clair Honey attended the Emergency Department of the Armadale Kelmscott Hospital late in the evening of 11 January 2021. He said he was confused and wanted help; he had experienced suicidal thoughts for four days; he had also experienced visual hallucinations and had consumed cannabis. He tested positive for amphetamine and cannabis. He stated he felt guilty for doing wrong to people: 'I assaulted people, I did sex with animals, I raped some one and that's why God is not happy from me'. The reason for his presentation at the Hospital was given as drug induced psychosis.[16]
[16] Exhibit 3, BM 79 - 80.
(10)On 12 January 2021, Mr St Clair Honey again presented at the Emergency Department of Armadale Kelmscott Hospital. He requested an admission to the hospital. He was unable to identify what he would gain from admission but said it would help him decide if God was real. He reported hearing voices from the television and radio and said he had suicidal thoughts. He denied having used methamphetamine. He was diagnosed with a drug induced psychosis. His risk to himself and others was assessed as low.[17]
[17] Exhibit 3, BM 13.
(11) On 13 January 2021, Mr St Clair Honey was admitted to the mental health unit at the Armadale Kelmscott Hospital for one day. He reported receiving messages from God - the messages were conveyed by road signs, television, the wind and other people. He stated he had not used methamphetamine for a few months. He admitted to thoughts of killing himself but had no plans or 'actual intent'.[18]
[18] Exhibit 3, BM 86 and following.
(12)Ms St Clair Honey visited Mr St Clair Honey on 15 January 2021. He said he was not feeling well and had been discharged from hospital without medication. Ms St Clair Honey discovered that Mr St Clair Honey had 'given away' his vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer the previous day. She recovered the vehicle.[19]
[19] Ms St Clair Honey, ts 33. Mr St Clair Honey told the consultant psychiatrist at the Frankland Centre that he had given away his vehicle for $5 and it had been reacquired for $15 - exhibit 3 BM 118.
(13)Ms St Clair Honey spoke to Mr St Clair Honey on 16 January 2021. He said that 'everything was okay' but sounded angry at one point in the conversation.
(14)On 18 January 2021, a staff member at the Armadale Health Service contacted Mr St Clair Honey by telephone. Mr St Clair Honey had failed to attend a discharge clinic. He stated he had been good; he did not think God was talking to him; he denied other forms of auditory or visual hallucinations; and he had not experienced thoughts of suicide or self-harm. The note of the telephone call made by the staff member recorded that there was no evidence of psychopathology or delusional thoughts/ideas of reference. Mr St Clair Honey had indicated he would attend a private psychiatrist.[20]
(15)There was an argument at Mr St Clair Honey's house involving Mr Blurton sometime during the afternoon of 18 January 2021. Mr Blurton left the house. Later, Ms Blurton came to the house. She and Mr St Clair Honey sat out the front of the house having a cigarette. A man walked past with a dog. Mr St Clair Honey jumped up and shouted, 'That man's got a gun'. Ms Blurton replied, 'No he doesn't. He's walking his dog'. As the man continued walking away, Mr St Clair Honey yelled out, 'Do it. Do it.'[21]
(16)At about 10.00 pm, 18 January, Mr St Clair Honey and Adam went to Ms St Clair Honey's house. She was not at home but Mr St Clair Honey's step-brother, Mr Oltmans, was at the house. He described Mr St Clair Honey as acting 'weird'. He had a feeling that 'something wasn't right' with Mr St Clair Honey. He contacted Ms St Clair Honey.[22]
(17)Ms St Clair Honey contacted Mr St Clair Honey by phone on her return home. He was angry and alleged that Mr Oltmans had slept with Ms Blurton and called Ms St Clair Honey a snake. Ms St Clair Honey hung up but then tried to phone Mr St Clair Honey again. Mr St Clair Honey's phone had been switched off. Ms St Clair Honey was concerned about Mr St Clair Honey's well-being so she contacted the police and asked that they undertake a welfare check.[23]
(18)Mr St Clair Honey and Adam went from their mother's house to Ms Stewart's home. Ms Stewart knew Mr St Clair Honey's mental health history. She initially considered that Mr St Clair Honey was in 'good spirits' and that he was not manic. However, he had wanted to discuss religion - he talked about being in Waroona and finding the Holy Grail; he said that he had left the Holy Grail behind but thought he should go back and get it; he also said he was the chosen one and that people were after him because he knew the location of the Holy Grail. He said he would not be violent if the people found him - he would just outthink them. Ms Stewart was concerned that Mr St Clair Honey was psychotic. She contacted Ms St Clair Honey but Mr St Clair Honey left as she did so.[24]
(19)Mr St Clair Honey sent a text to Ms Blurton after he returned home from visiting Ms Stewart. He asked her to collect Mr Blurton from his house. He subsequently phoned Ms Blurton and said that Adam had attacked Mr Blurton.
(20)Ms Blurton went to Mr St Clair Honey's house, arriving at about midnight. She could not locate her brother at the house and subsequently called the police. She saw Adam at the house.[25]
(21)At about 12.45 am, 19 January 2021, Senior Constable Hoad and Constable Lara Rivas attended at Mr St Clair Honey's house. They were responding to a complaint by Ms Blurton. Mr St Clair Honey said he had argued with Ms Blurton. Constable Lara Rivas stated that he was not concerned about Mr St Clair Honey's mental health as a result of their discussion with him. He was responsive to questions and his answers appeared to be appropriate. Constable Lara Rivas then contacted Ms Blurton. She corroborated Mr St Clair Honey's account of what had occurred when she had gone to Mr St Clair Honey's house earlier that night.[26]
(22)Shortly after 7.10 am, 19 January 2021, Ms Westbrook saw smoke coming from Mr St Clair Honey's house. The Fire Emergency Service arrived at the house about 20 minutes later.[27]
[20] Exhibit 3, BM 11 - 12.
[21] Ms Blurton, ts 36.
[22] Mr Oltmans, ts 41.
[23] Mr Oltmans, ts 41.
[24] Ms Stewart, ts 48 - 49 and see also, the evidence of Mr Stewart who was present during the visit by Mr St Clair Honey and Adam St Clair Honey.
[25] Ms Blurton, ts 37.
[26] Constable Lara Rivas, ts 88 – 89; see also the evidence of Ms De Snoo who described being woken at about 12.30 am by the sound of a male and female yelling and shouting. Exhibit 5 included film taken by the body camera worn by Senior Constable Hoad.
[27] Ms Westbrook, ts 57; Mr Garnett, ts 63.
Mr St Clair Honey's electronically recorded interviews
Mr St Clair Honey was arrested at Richard St Clair Honey's house mid-afternoon on 19 January 2021. Exhibit 5 included audio visual film taken by the body camera worn by Constable Cook at the time of the arrest.
Mr St Clair Honey participated in two electronically recorded interviews with detectives following his arrest: an interview with Detective Sergeant Miller and Detective Smirk commencing at 1:34 am on 20 January 2021 and an interview with Detective Sergeant Miller and Detective Sergeant Pitts commencing at 6:22 pm on the same day. The recordings formed part of the audio-visual files that comprise exhibit 5.
Dr Brett and Dr Bala considered that Mr St Clair Honey was psychotic at the time of the interviews. I accept their opinions.
Whether Mr St Clair Honey was psychotic at the time of the interviews is not a matter that a judge can independently assess; it is a matter of expert opinion to be given by appropriately qualified medical practitioners. However, there were some features of the interviews that were obviously consistent with the opinions expressed by Dr Brett and Dr Bala. There were points in the interviews where Mr St Clair Honey gave appropriate, succinct answers to questions. However, there were many instances where Mr St Clair Honey's answers were loosely structured and barely coherent – where his thoughts appeared to be disorganised. He expressed paranoid thoughts. He also expressed grandiose ideas; apparently held delusional beliefs; and was pre-occupied with thoughts about God. His affect was often inappropriate to the content of the questions and his answers – in particular, the lack of emotion he displayed when describing the circumstances in which he had killed Adam and how he had subsequently set fire to Adam's body.
For example, in the first interview Mr St Clair Honey said in response to a question about whether he understood the caution he had been given:[28]
I don't know to be honest. I, I don't know, I don't know, like, you know, I don't know if my head, you know, this is the biggest battle for me that I've faced, you know. It's that you think you've found God right, literally, like, not a matter of speaking, like a literal matter, all right? And then, you non stop you can't sleep because your just constantly tired, but, you can't sleep, because your head is just opening doors and answering questions that, you know, you shouldn't really, you know, be going into, and you don't know what the hell's going on, and then, your mind just has gone black, and then you just sort of already know what you need to be told at a certain time, and it's really tiring you know?
[28] Page 5 of the transcript.
The detectives then explained that they wanted to speak to him about Adam's death. Mr St Clair Honey was asked what he could tell the detectives about that matter and he replied, 'Guilty'. He was asked what he meant by that answer and he said, 'I'm, guilty. That's all I can say, that I'm guilty.' He was asked, 'Guilty of what?' He replied, 'Guilty of murder….In the first degree. Cold blooded.' He was then asked what happened and he said:[29]
Uh, pretty much like, it's just hard to explain like you know, the old boy was telling me to do it, and, you know, it didn't, you know, just didn't know how, didn't know why, I knew why, you know, like, I knew exactly why, it's just yeah, and then, I just, everything sort of just kept lining up, you know, just everything just falling into place for it to happen, and I just, you know, I couldn't, I couldn't not do it, you know. I was like charged with, to fucking, to, do it. I was you know.
…
I wasn't told to do it, there's not, no, I can't tell, I can't, I'm not gonna to say the voices, so there's no fucking voices on my mind, there was no fucking voices.
…
You know, it's just a fucking, you know, he just wanted, you know, I said to him, I was looking for the Holy Grail for the Queen you know? And he's, and I had to tell him that I'm gone to do the Meth, and he's gonna smoke a ki, I don't know, he goes, I'll get half, and he goes, 'I'll smoke a kilo of Meth in a night, and then he tried to stab my dog with a pair of pliers, and he kicked already two times that night. I let my dog go, I let her out of the house so she could be safe, and then the poor thing come back, you know? And then, yeah, she come back, I heard her out the front, you know, when I'm loading up my ute, to go searching again. Um, and like I said to you, if you have a look in the back of my um, you might not believe in it now, but you might after.
…If you have a look in the, in my Ute, in that, the Ute that I drove back to dads in, in the, in the passenger side back wheel, inside the, if you take the cap of…the hub cap there's a piece of paper…No that is where I believe the last known whereabouts of the Holy Grail is. If you find it, let the Queen know, she's be happy. But if you don't, it's been moved, and that's 'cause I've opened my big mouth, but see, I said the wrong Lot number, only 'cause my mind was playing tricks on me, well not playing tricks, it was protecting me, like it has in the past, um.
[29] Pages 9 - 10 of the transcript.
When asked who the 'old boy' was, Mr St Clair Honey replied 'the boss. The big boss, you know?' He was asked to expand on that answer and he said, 'There's only one, you know. Well I don't know what his name is, you know, God, you know, like, the Lord of yeah, that's all I can explain, yeah. I don't, yeah, I don't know his real name, whatever, God, well yeah, he must have one, but.'[30]
[30] Page 11 of the transcript.
At another point in the interview, Mr St Clair Honey stated he had given Adam what he wanted: peace. Asked how he had given Adam peace, he replied 'murdered him in cold blood'.[31] He said he had given Adam two pills and then waited until 5:30 am. Adam was asleep and Mr St Clair Honey 'took the hammer to his skull'. He then went outside and prayed. He felt that Adam's spirit came to him while he was outside in a shed.[32]
[31] Page 14 of the transcript.
[32] Page 15 of the transcript.
The balance of the interview focused on events leading up to the killing of Adam. The sequence of events described by Mr St Clair Honey substantially accorded with the evidence given by the State's witnesses. It is not necessary to summarise what Mr St Clair Honey said about those matters in the interview, other than to note that:
(a)Mr St Clair Honey stated he had shaved his head a day or two before Adam was killed because other people had 'stolen the object which he was claiming to have possibly found' and they were following him and looking for him as a result. Similarly, he had painted his ute and altered the number plate so that he could not be found.[33]
[33] Pages 23 - 26 of the transcript.
(b)Mr St Clair Honey said he had driven to Busselton after killing Adam. He spoke to someone at a church - a young man who was wearing 'a blue shirt which said “Verified”'.[34]
(c)Mr St Clair Honey said that he could not remember setting fire to Adam's body.
(d)Mr St Clair Honey was asked what he wanted to do when he hit Adam on the head with the hammer. He replied:
What did I want to do? Well, give him what he [wanted], I just, I was just doing what I sort of, yeah, like, what, I sort of felt like, the Universe or God, which is the Universe is telling me to do it, you know? Um, like, yeah, even when it come, like, I don't know, it's just, it's just and craziness, like, it is craziness you know? Um, but I wanted to, you know, I don't know, I didn't, I didn't want anything to be honest, I didn't want to….
(e)Towards the end of the interview, Mr St Clair Honey was asked questions about his recent attendance at the Armadale Kelmscott Hospital. He explained he had not felt safe and then gave a series of rambling and rather incoherent answers about why he had felt that way. The answers disclosed disordered and paranoid thoughts; ideas of reference, such as hearing voices on the television that he thought were speaking to him; and a preoccupation with God and religion.
(f)At the end of the interview, Detective Sergeant Miller asked whether it was safe to say that Mr St Clair Honey knew that what he had done was wrong. Mr St Clair Honey replied:[35]
I reckon it's right, it's not that, do you know, it's not, it's not that I think I'm upset as in, I know it's wrong, like, I know it's uh, it's wrong to do, yeah, I understand that, but I don't believe that God's gonna hold me accountable, I think God wanted me to do it. Um, I think, it was kill or be killed in it as well, I think, um, there's evil forces out there, that uh, can't be explained and um, I just, I think that I'm tasked with doing certain things that other people aren't capable of doing. Like and my priest even said, you know? He said, you, there's, you've got a gift that you, that other people don't have that you can help, you know? Um, and the thing about it is that, it's people like Adam that, are easily manipulated into evil, evil ways and doing the evil work of these evil organisations, you know. Um, I love my brother, he's with me now, I know it, like I felt it, you know what I mean? But the thing about that is, is that that, I'm not sad for him, cause I know he's gone to a better place, you know? Um, I'm sad for my family, that's what I'm sad for, you know?
[34] Page 32 of the transcript.
[35] Page 60 of the transcript.
Mr St Clair Honey answered questions early in the second interview about the layout of his house and related matters in a responsive and coherent way. However, in answer to a question about the location of a modem, Mr St Clair Honey said:[36]
I wouldn't have a clue. It should be - yeah. It should, yeah. It should have been there. Like, yeah. Should have been where it was. Like it - I never disconnected it. So, um, it's just the weirdest thing happened before like, see, I had this feeling that I was getting - I know it is gonna sound crazy - I had this feeling like I was getting set up. You know? And I know, like, it's the weirdest thing cause' did this - this thing with the next door neighbor. Right? He did this thing with the light switches. Six times he's turned the light switches when he went into bed. Like he - he thought he was giving them the go ahead.
…
And he did the last bit six times. Switch, switch, switch, switch, switch, switch. And I heard it. You know? And I was like, 'Okay'. And it's this other thing that [indistinct] was doing with her car. Like, when my windows weren't locked up properly, she would leave the back windows in the car down half way. And then whenever I secured the house, she would go outside and she would put the windows up - back windows up in the car. Sort of saying, 'alright. The security's up.' sort of thing. I don't know. Strange shit like that was happening all the time. You know? Um, yeah.
[36] Page 7 of the transcript.
Later in the interview, Mr St Clair Honey gave an unemotional account of setting fire to Adam's body and placing his own clothes on the fire. He said he hoped that Adam was dead by the time he lit the fire using methylated spirits. He added:[37]
Like cause' I'm hoping I didn't burn him alive. If I did, then fuck, that's on me, yeah. But, I felt like - yeah I definitely - I felt like he was gone, you know? Because when I was out there back, in the shed, I sort of felt his spirit come to me. You know? Like, uh, the door closes, like, it's like, three or four minutes later after, you know, I felt him come to me, so. Um - yeah yeah.
[37] Page 13 of the transcript.
Mr St Clair Honey said he had given Adam some food and made him a coffee before setting him alight. He had also poured beer over his body. He described pouring the beer as giving Adam a drink. He said he had placed a sheet on Adam. He also went outside and poured flour next to a 'Blackboy' tree as a tribute or sacrifice to God. He had also prayed.[38]
[38] Pages 13 - 14 of the transcript. See also exhibit 12 at par 16.
At the end of the interview, Mr St Clair Honey was asked some routine questions about the conduct of the interview. He confirmed that he had not been threatened or promised anything and added:[39]
Just the right thing to do. You know what I mean? Like, I know. Yeah. At the end of the day, like, yeah. It's the right thing to do, you know. Even if God was - if I believe God was telling me what to do or not, or go out of my hand, I still know that this is the right thing to do is be honest. You know? Um, it's one thing that I keep hearing in my head, but my - but my own voice, no one else's - is, you know, the truth will set you free. You know? If it doesn't, it doesn't. But I just got to go with what I can go with. I can't do anything else than that.
[39] Page 21 of the transcript.
Mr St Clair Honey's admission to the Frankland Centre
As noted above, Mr St Clair Honey was arrested during the afternoon of 19 January 2021. He participated in two electronically recorded interviews on 20 January and was then remanded in custody. He was reviewed by a psychiatrist, Dr Petch, the following day.
Dr Petch's notes recorded Mr St Clair Honey as reporting that his life had been easier since he 'got God'. According to the notes, Mr St Clair Honey also reported:[40]
Signs everywhere - numberplates, streets signs, labels on bags, things on TV. All messages direct from God. God guided my hand. The messages were to put my brother to peace. Their final message was Adam switching the light on and off six times before going to sleep. Then I knew. He had too much pain in his life. Nothing was going to stop me. I was on a mission. I was not forced. But I had no choice. I know murder is wrong and I will have to serve 25 years. I was somehow compelled, but not physically. It had to be done. Afterwards I prayed for him, and felt his spirit (Adams). I know that Adam is at peace. I cannot remember the fire. No voices. I am on a mission to find the Holy Grail. Under God's influence I did not need to take medication.
[40] Exhibit 3, BM 168.
Mr St Clair Honey denied being a special person with gifts or powers but said that Adam's death had been God's will. He did not feel any guilt as God's will had been done.
Dr Petch assessed Mr St Clair Honey as experiencing an acute paranoid psychosis in the reported absence of drugs. The history given by Mr St Clair Honey suggested he was psychotic at the time he killed Adam.[41]
[41] Exhibit 3, BM 168.
Mr St Clair Honey was again assessed by another psychiatrist, Dr Smith, on 29 January 2021. Mr St Clair Honey was reported to have said he could no longer use God as an excuse. He did not hear voices but still got subliminal messages and signs, including through other people. He continued to ascribe meaning to what he regarded as signs directed to him. For example, he said that his brother turning the light on and off six times on the night he was killed meant 'kill me' (the words had six letters).[42]
[42] Exhibit 3, BM 163.
Dr Smith assessed Mr St Clair Honey as remaining psychotic and preoccupied with the meaning of random occurrences. However, Dr Smith noted that Mr St Clair Honey was becoming increasingly conscious of the enormity of his actions and traumatised by his more focused awareness. Dr Smith also noted, for the purpose of a referral to the Frankland Centre, that Mr St Clair Honey had exhibited extremely serious offending behaviour in a 'floridly psychotic mental state'.[43]
[43] Exhibit 3, BM 163.
Mr St Clair Honey was assessed by Dr Petch on 4 February 2021. In Dr Petch's opinion, Mr St Clair Honey remained 'somewhat incoherent' and acutely psychotic.[44]
[44] Exhibit 3, BM 162.
Dr Petch again assessed Mr St Clair Honey on 9 and 12 February 2021. He was assessed as remaining deluded; his delusions were said to be fairly fixed.[45]
[45] Exhibit 3, BM 159.
Mr St Clair Honey was assessed once more by Dr Petch on 18 and 22 February 2021. His mood had deteriorated and, in Dr Petch's opinion, Mr St Clair Honey remained psychotic. He had expressed some suicidal thoughts and remained preoccupied with commands that he thought came from God.[46]
[46] Exhibit 3, BM 156.
Mr St Clair Honey was admitted to the Frankland Centre on 2 March 2021. He was reviewed by a consultant psychiatrist and registrar on 3 March 2021. He was reported as stating that he believed he had been commanded by God to kill Adam and he needed to find the Holy Grail. He believed the Holy Grail was in Waroona and expressed other obviously delusional thoughts around that belief. He also described auditory and visual hallucinations and instances of self-harming.
The reviewing psychiatrist considered Mr St Clair Honey presented with clear features of psychosis, including bizarre and religious delusions, thought disorder and impaired judgment. He was experiencing ongoing psychotic symptoms. The most likely diagnosis was schizophrenia.
The discharge summary for the Frankland Centre recorded that there was a gradual improvement in Mr St Clair Honey's psychotic symptoms across March 2021. He was assessed as symptom free on 1 April.
The parties (and Dr Brett and Dr Bala) accepted that the Frankland Centre discharge summary was an accurate record of Mr St Clair Honey's history and the assessment and treatment of his mental health while a patient in the Centre. I find that the discharge summary provided a reliable source of information about those matters.
Other aspects of Mr St Clair Honey's mental health history
Mr St Clair Honey gave a consistent account of his mental health history to Dr Brett and Dr Bala. A more detailed account of his medical history is to be found in various documents forming part of exhibit 3 – most usefully, in the Frankland Centre discharge summary.[47] Dr Brett and Dr Bala had access to mental health records for Mr St Clair Honey that were contained in exhibit 3.
[47] Exhibit 3, BM 115 and following.
Findings have already been made about Mr St Clair Honey's mental state and attendances at the Armadale Kelmscott Hospital between 7 and 19 January 2021. I make the following further findings about Mr St Clair Honey's mental health history. The findings are based on the history given by Mr St Clair Honey to Dr Brett and Dr Bala and the records comprising exhibit 3:
(1)Mr St Clair Honey experienced episodes of what he characterised as depression, accompanied by thoughts of suicide, in his childhood and adolescence.[48]
(2)Mr St Clair Honey was diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in his mid-twenties (he told Dr Brett he was diagnosed when he was aged 24 years). The diagnosis was made by a private psychiatrist, Dr Sekon, who prescribed dexamphetamine. Mr St Clair Honey continued to see Dr Sekon and was still taking dexamphetamine at the time he killed Adam.
(3)Ms St Clair Honey was concerned that Mr St Clair Honey was experiencing a psychotic episode in April 2013. He presented to the Rockingham Hospital Emergency Department but no mental health issues were noted.
(4)Mr St Clair Honey was held in custody at Hakea Prison in June 2016. There was an incident of self-harm noted in the prison records. The records stated that Mr St Clair Honey described the incident as an act of frustration caused by a belief that he had been mistreated by the police. He gave a history of cannabis use and involvement with bikie gangs. He also reported continuing use of dexamphetamine as prescription medication for ADHD.
(5)Mr St Clair Honey was admitted to the mental health unit at the Armadale Kelmscott Hospital between 11 and 14 September 2016. He had used dexamphetamine earlier on the day of his admission and methamphetamine two days prior. He reported experiencing paranoid and delusional thoughts and beliefs. He was diagnosed as suffering from a drug induced psychosis and anti-social personality traits. He was prescribed an anti-psychotic used to treat schizophrenia: Olanzapine. He was also prescribed Benzodiazepine. Mr St Clair Honey could not recall how long he continued with his medication post-discharge but his medical records indicated that he quickly settled after being prescribed Olanzapine.
[48] As reported by Mr St Clair Honey and confirmed collaterally by Ms St Clair Honey (as noted in the Frankland Centre discharge summary at exhibit 3 BM 115).
Mr St Clair's Honey's mental state
I make the following findings about Mr St Clair Honey's mental state prior to, following, and at the time that he killed Adam. The findings are based on the evidence and findings discussed above:
(1)From at least 7 January 2021, Mr St Clair Honey experienced auditory and visual hallucinations, delusional thoughts and ideas of reference. These phenomena fluctuated in intensity but became more insistent over time.
(2)Again, from at least 7 January 2021, Mr St Clair Honey became pre-occupied with thoughts about God and religious ideas such as the search for the Holy Grail.
(3)Mr St Clair Honey's auditory hallucinations included God speaking to him, either directly or through media such as the television. The hallucinations include command hallucinations - that is, experiences of God directing him to do something.
(4)Mr St Clair Honey's ideas of reference also included attributing special meaning to random occurrences (such as turning a light switch on and off) and objects (such as road signs). The meanings he ascribed to those 'signs' on occasions took the form of directions that he should follow.
(5)Mr St Clair Honey's thoughts in the period after 7 January 2021 were often disordered. His behaviour was sometimes erratic and irrational as a consequence - for example, his trip to Waroona to find the Holy Grail, his 'confessions' to 'killing' Mr Nick Martin and his decision to dispose of his car for no real value.
(6)Mr St Clair Honey was troubled by his hallucinations and disordered and paranoid thinking. He felt confused, disorientated and had thoughts of suicide. That prompted him to seek help in mid-January 2021, at a time when he appreciated he was unwell.
(7)Mr St Clair Honey's delusional belief that he knew the location of the Holy Grail fed into paranoid thoughts that people were following him and planning to harm him. He commenced taking steps to disguise himself and his movements by around 18 January 2021. His thoughts and actions were an indication that he was becoming overwhelmed by his delusional beliefs.
The State did not contend that what Mr St Clair Honey told the detectives in his electronically recorded interviews about his mental and emotional state should be rejected. I accept that Mr St Clair Honey gave a frank account in the interviews of his thoughts and feelings prior to and at the time he killed Adam.
I find that Mr St Clair Honey believed he was giving effect to the will of God in killing Adam. I also find that Mr St Clair Honey thought that he was bringing peace to Adam by killing him; that it was the right thing to do because Adam would go to a better place.
I further find that:
(1)Mr St Clair Honey was emotionally detached from the reality of his actions immediately following Adam's death. That was apparent from his demeanour and statements in the interviews with the detectives on 20 January 2021. It was also evident in the observations made by Dr Petch and Dr Smith prior to Mr St Clair Honey's admission to the Frankland Centre and in the assessments undertaken following his admission. The reviewing psychiatrists noted that Mr St Clair Honey gradually came to appreciate the enormity of his actions - it would seem as his psychosis slowly resolved.
(2)Mr St Clair Honey was acutely unwell when he was remanded in custody following his arrest and when he was subsequently admitted to the Frankland Centre. His symptoms of psychosis gradually resolved during the month that he was treated in the Frankland Centre. He was symptom free by about the start of April 2021.
The meaning and effect of s 27 (1) of the Criminal Code
In my view, s 27(1) of the Criminal Code is to be interpreted and applied according to the following propositions:
(a)The issue of criminal responsibility raised by s 27(1) falls to be determined before the issue of Mr St Clair Honey's intent at the time he struck Adam several times to the head with a hammer. The question of intention only arises if Mr St Clair Honey is found to be criminally responsible for his acts.[49]
(b)What constitutes a mental illness is a question of law; whether Mr St Clair Honey suffered from a mental illness at the time he killed Adam is a question of fact.[50]
(c)The wording of s 27(1) is broadly consistent with the observations of King CJ in R v Radford.[51] Those observations were summarised by Jenkins J in The State of Western Australia v Lang [No 2].[52] Her Honour's summary has been adopted by other members of this court.[53]
(d)The incapacity of a person to control their actions due to mental impairment mirrors s 23A of the Criminal Code. A person who is incapable of exercising the power of determination or choice due to a mental impairment is not criminally responsible for their acts in the same way as a person who does an act independently of the exercise of their will is not criminally responsible for the act.[54]
(e)A person is deprived of the capacity to control their actions 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)'.[55] A person may lack the capacity to control their actions as a result of a mental impairment even though their act was willed - for example, because they acted on a delusional belief or other psychotic phenomena that overwhelmed their capacity to control their actions.
(f)The question whether an accused person has the capacity to know that he or she ought not to do the charged act or make the charged omission requires the court to determine whether, at the time of the act or omission, the accused was able to appreciate that the act or omission was wrong according to ordinary community standards. The issue is whether, due to a mental impairment, the accused lacked the capacity to reason rationally as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary community standards.
(g)There is no requirement that an accused person knew that the act was wrong in the sense of being contrary to law. What is required is that the accused knew 'right from wrong, good from evil, not legality from illegality.'[56]
(h)The term 'know' means 'understanding, appreciate or comprehend'. Knowledge (short of understanding) that to kill is punishable by law does not prevent a finding that a person lacked the capacity to reason rationally as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary standards. Further, a finding of incapacity does not depend upon proof of a positive belief in the rightness of the accused's act.[57]
[49] Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254 25] (Kennedy J).
[50] R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30 [60] (Deane and Dawson JJ).
[51] R v Radford (1985) 20 A Crim R 388.
[52] The State of Western Australia v Lang [No 2] [2016] WASC 206. See also The State of Western Australia v Herbert [2017] WASC 101 and The State of Western Australia v Jones [2018] WASC 395.
[53] See The State of Western Australia v Haast [2020] WASC 161 (McGrath J); The State of Western Australia v Djurasovic [2021] WASC 466 (Hall J) and The State of Western Australia v Taylor [2021] WASC 470 (Derrick J).
[54] R v Falconer.
[55] The State of Western Australia v Taylor [51].
[56] Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 558.
[57] Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34 [30] – [31] (McLure P).
Other principles of law to be applied
The presumption of innocence
Any person who stands trial for a criminal offence is presumed to be innocent; he or she is presumed to be innocent not just before the trial but throughout the trial. Consequently, Mr St Clair Honey is presumed to be innocent of the charges alleged against him and the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a verdict is reached. Save for the issue raised by s 26 and s 27(1) of the Code, it follows that the State has the onus of proving Mr St Clair Honey's guilt.
The State must prove Mr St Clair Honey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires the State to prove each element of the offence alleged to that standard. Mr St Clair Honey must be found not guilty if the State has failed to prove any element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
True verdict only on the evidence
I am required to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence; that is, my findings of fact and my verdict must be based solely on the evidence presented in the trial. Further, I am required to assess the evidence, and make my findings objectively and impartially. Sympathy, prejudice, sentiment or emotion must not play any part in my reasoning.
I am not permitted to guess or speculate about matters that were not in evidence. Theories that were not supported by the evidence are to be disregarded.
Inferences
I am required to draw an inference about Mr St Clair Honey's mental state at the time that he killed Adam - on the issues put by the parties to the court for determination, whether he knew that he ought not to have repeatedly hit Adam with a hammer. That is a matter on which Mr St Clair Honey carries the onus, the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. I am not required to draw an inference on a matter on which the State bears the onus given the admissions made by Mr St Clair Honey.
An inference is a conclusion of fact rationally drawn from a combination of proved facts. Accordingly, an inference can only be drawn from evidence that has been accepted as truthful and reliable. Speculation or conjecture must be avoided in drawing an inference. However, it is not necessary that a fact be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be used for the purpose of drawing an inference (unless proof of the fact is essential to a finding of guilt); it is sufficient that the fact is established by evidence that has been accepted as truthful and reliable.
Expert evidence
The fact that a witness possesses specialist knowledge about a subject does not mean that their evidence must be accepted. Expert evidence is like all evidence received in a trial; it is open to accept or reject any part of the evidence, including the opinions expressed by an expert.
However, the parties accept that Dr Brett and Dr Bala are qualified to give evidence of their opinions and conclusions. No issue has been raised about how they reasoned to their opinions and their impartiality is not disputed. It is not suggested that there was a material inconsistency between their evidence and the balance of the evidence adduced in the trial. There is no substantive difference in their opinions on the issues that must be decided. Accordingly, there is no reasonable basis for rejecting the opinions of Dr Brett and Dr Bala.
Mr St Clair Honey did not give evidence
Mr St Clair Honey elected not to give evidence. That was his right and no inference is to be drawn against him because he exercised the right. The State did not require Mr St Clair Honey to give evidence to lay the factual foundation for the opinions expressed by Dr Brett and Dr Bala - the State accepts the veracity of the history given by Mr St Clair Honey to each doctor.
The opinions of Dr Brett and Dr Bala
As previously noted, Dr Brett and Dr Bala differed in their opinions in only one potentially material respect: whether Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to control his actions as a result of a mental impairment. However, they agreed that Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to have repeatedly struck Adam to the head with a hammer. Consequently, it is not necessary to determine the question whether Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to control his actions to decide the ultimate issue of whether he is criminally responsible for his acts of striking Adam.
It is, therefore, convenient to consider the evidence of Dr Brett and Dr Bala by focusing on the common ground in their opinions. That is sufficient to dispose of the issues raised by s 27(1) of the Code.
Four preliminary matters should be noted. First, as previously mentioned, Mr St Clair Honey gave a consistent history to Dr Brett and Dr Bala. Further, Dr Brett and Dr Bala had access to the same materials to form their opinions. There was no material difference between the facts and circumstances on which they expressed their respective opinions.
Second, the facts that I have found are consistent with the facts and circumstances on which Dr Brett and Dr Bala based their opinions.
Third, the difference of opinion between Dr Brett and Dr Bala on the question of whether Mr St Clair Honey could control his actions did not affect my assessment of their evidence on all other issues. Dr Brett considered that the assessment of an accused person's capacity to control their actions for the purpose of s 27(1) of the Code is problematic - he described the capacity, in its statutory context, as 'woolly and unclear' and observed that 'the legal and clinical aspects did not join up very well'.[58] Dr Bala explained that there was a broad and a narrow view of the capacity taken by psychiatrists. He took a narrow view, whereas Dr Brett took a broad view of the capacity.
[58] Dr Brett, ts 95 and 102.
It is not necessary to further consider the different views identified by Dr Bala and which view (if either) accords with s 27(1) of the Code on its proper construction given that Dr Brett and Dr Bala agree that Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to have repeatedly struck Adam with a hammer. It is sufficient to note that it was apparent from the evidence of Dr Brett and Dr Bala that reasonable psychiatrists might differ about whether Mr St Clair Honey lacked the capacity to control his actions. In my view, the difference between Dr Brett and Dr Bala on this aspect did not undermine the validity of their opinions on the issues that had to be decided in reaching a verdict.
Fourth, Dr Brett and Dr Bala made some observations about the evidence that should be noted:
(a)Dr Brett considered that Mr St Clair Honey's behaviour during the electronically recorded interviews with detectives provided 'excellent' evidence that Mr St Clair Honey was floridly psychotic at the time he killed Adam.[59] That evidence was reinforced by the psychiatric assessments undertaken while Mr St Clair Honey was in custody following his arrest and a patient at the Frankland Centre.[60]
(b)Dr Brett was 'reasonably confident' that Mr St Clair Honey's psychosis was not drug induced. There was no evidence that he had consumed methamphetamine; his positive urinanalysis result for amphetamine was explained by his use of dexamphetamine which had been prescribed for ADHD. The analysis results would have shown the presence of methamphetamine and amphetamine if Mr St Clair Honey had consumed methamphetamine.[61] There was no evidence of intoxication at the time Mr St Clair Honey spoke to Senior Constable Hoad and Constable Lara Rivas. The duration of his psychosis was inconsistent with it having been drug induced.[62]
(c)Dr Brett considered that Mr St Clair Honey's psychosis was severe at the time he killed Adam. He was probably experiencing command auditory hallucinations – messages from God that he was experiencing in different forms.[63]
(d)Dr Bala also considered that Mr St Clair Honey was psychotic at the time he was interviewed by detectives. He 'disclosed quite a lot of psychotic symptoms in relation to the offending' during the interviews. Further, he appeared to be emotionally 'cut off' - his affect was incongruent with the nature of the crime he had committed. Dr Bala considered that Mr St Clair Honey's delusional beliefs had resulted in him not being able to express the kind of emotions that would be ordinarily expected in the circumstances.[64]
(e)Dr Bala considered that Mr St Clair Honey was psychotic at the time he was interviewed by Senior Constable Hoad and Constable Lara Rivas. That was so even though he appeared to have some control over his behaviour and thoughts.[65]
(f)Dr Bala also considered that Mr St Clair Honey's psychosis was not drug induced. The duration of his psychosis was inconsistent with it being drug induced. Further, there was no evidence that Mr St Clair Honey was intoxicated at the time he killed Adam.[66]
[59] Exhibit 11A, page 16; Dr Brett, ts 94.
[60] Dr Brett, ts 95.
[61] Dr Brett, ts 104.
[62] Dr Brett, ts 96 – 97.
[63] Dr Brett, ts 102.
[64] Dr Bala, ts 122 – 123.
[65] Dr Bala, ts 125.
[66] Dr Bala, ts 126.
Dr Brett and Dr Bala agreed that:
(a)Schizophrenia is a type of psychotic disorder characterised by abnormal behaviour and beliefs; and 'impairment in reality testing'.[67] It is a mental illness – an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind.[68]
(b)The symptoms of schizophrenia are typically divided into three domains - positive (symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions which add something to the normal experience of reality); negative (symptoms such as lack of emotion and social withdrawal which detract from the normal experience of reality) and cognitive symptoms (typically, disorganised thought processes).[69]
(c)Mr St Clair Honey was diagnosed with schizophrenia following his admission to the Frankland Centre. Dr Brett and Dr Bala agreed with that diagnosis. Mr St Clair Honey presented with symptoms in the three 'domains' for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Mr St Clair Honey developed untreated schizophrenia in about early January 2021. He was psychotic prior to, at the time of, and following the acts which caused Adam's death. He was floridly/unequivocally psychotic at the time that he killed Adam.[70]
(d)Mr St Clair Honey's mental illness affected the functioning of his mind, including his ability to reason and to understand.[71]
(e)Mr St Clair Honey believed at the time he killed Adam that what he was doing was right as he was fulfilling God's will and providing peace for his brother. He was overwhelmed by various delusional beliefs and ideas of reference. Those beliefs and ideas included that the behaviour of Adam and Ms Blurton conveyed signals that he and others were in danger and that God was giving him permission to kill Adam in order to relieve his pain and suffering. He believed he was acting according to God's will and at the direction of God.[72]
(f)Mr St Clair Honey was not intoxicated at the time he killed Adam and his psychosis was not drug induced. There was no evidence that he was intentionally intoxicated by the consumption of an illicit substance. Further, the duration of his psychosis was inconsistent with the disorder being drug induced; rather, the persistence of his symptoms was consistent with the diagnosis of schizophrenia.[73]
(g)Mr St Clair Honey was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts that caused Adam's death as a result of his mental illness. He believed that it was right to kill Adam because he was fulfilling God's will and putting his brother at peace.
[67] Dr Brett, ts 93; exhibit 12, page 16.
[68] Exhibit 12, page 17; exhibit 11A, page 16.
[69] Dr Brett, ts 93 - 94; exhibit 12, page 16.
[70] Exhibit 11A, page 16; exhibit 12, page 17.
[71] Exhibit 11A, page 16; exhibit 12, page 17.
[72] Exhibit 11A, page 17; exhibit 12, page 17.
[73] Exhibit 11A, page 17; exhibit 12, page 18. See also Dr Brett, ts 97 and 99.
I make findings according to the opinions expressed by Dr Brett and Dr Bala. Their opinions accorded with the evidence presented in the trial and were consistent with the findings I have made on the evidence. In particular, the symptoms of schizophrenia identified by Dr Brett and Dr Bala were consistent with the findings made about Mr St Clair Honey's mental state.
Findings on s 27(1) of the Criminal Code
I accept the opinions expressed by Dr Brett and Dr Bala. I find that:
(a)Mr St Clair Honey was suffering from a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, when he repeatedly struck Adam to the head with a hammer. He had suffered from that disorder for some time prior to 19 January 2021 – from, at least, early January 2021.
(b)Schizophrenia is a form of mental illness - a pathological infirmity of the mind.
(c)Mr St Clair Honey was suffering from a mental impairment at the time he caused Adam's death by repeatedly striking him to the head.
(d)Mr St Clair Honey was psychotic at the time he killed Adam. He was experiencing hallucinations about God, held various delusional beliefs and his thought processes were disorganised. He was subject to ideas of reference about the meaning of Adam's behaviour and random occurrences. He believed that he was doing God's will in killing Adam and that he was bringing peace to Adam.
(e)Mr St Clair Honey was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to repeatedly strike Adam to the head with a hammer - that is, he was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts that he did according to ordinary community standards. He lacked that capacity because of his mental illness - he could not reason rationally as to what was right or wrong according to ordinary community standards because of the hallucinations he experienced and the delusional beliefs and ideas he held as a consequence of his illness.
Findings on the charged offences
Mr St Clair Honey admitted that he struck Adam several times to the head. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr St Clair Honey's acts caused Adam's death. However, I am also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr St Clair Honey is not criminally responsible for those acts on account of unsoundness of mind. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the killing of Adam was unlawful.
I am not required to make a finding on Mr St Clair Honey's intentions at the time he killed Adam.
Order
Section 21 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) provides that if an accused is acquitted by a superior court of an offence on account of unsoundness of mind, the court must make a custody order in respect of the accused if the offence is a Schedule 1 offence. The offence of murder is a Schedule 1 offence. Accordingly, I make a custody order in respect of Mr St Clair Honey.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
HT
Associate to the Honourable Justice Corboy
17 JUNE 2022
15
0