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

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

The accused, though proven on the evidence to have committed the physical acts alleged (murder and contravention of ADVO), was, on the balance of probabilities, suffering a mental health impairment at the time sufficient that he did not know the nature and quality of his acts or that they were wrong. The requirements for a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) were satisfied. Accordingly, special verdicts of act proven but not criminally responsible were entered for both counts.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex (Crown); Accused: Jiman Yeon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Special Hearing Following Finding of Unfitness to Stand Trial
Outcome
Special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered on both counts. Accused to be detained as a forensic patient and referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Defence of Mental Health Impairment, Unfitness to Stand Trial, Special Verdict Act Proven But Not Criminally Responsible, Standard and Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Defence of Mental Health Impairment Unfitness to Stand Trial Special Verdict Act Proven But Not Criminally Responsible Standard and Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecution

Jiman Yeon

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Special Hearing Following Finding of Unfitness to Stand Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was criminally responsible for the alleged acts, having regard to the defence of mental health impairment under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether statutory requirements for a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible were met

Ratio Decidendi

The accused, though proven on the evidence to have committed the physical acts alleged (murder and contravention of ADVO), was, on the balance of probabilities, suffering a mental health impairment at the time sufficient that he did not know the nature and quality of his acts or that they were wrong. The requirements for a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) were satisfied. Accordingly, special verdicts of act proven but not criminally responsible were entered for both counts.

Court Disposition

Special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered on both counts. Accused to be detained as a forensic patient and referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Orders

  • In respect of count 1 (murder), a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.
  • In respect of the charge under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.