R v Tran [2019] NSWDC 644

R v Tran [2019] NSWDC 644

Although the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offences, the accused established the defence of mental illness. The evidence of his bizarre delusions, hallucinations, contemporaneous statements, persistence of psychotic symptoms beyond any transient drug effect, and the opinions of Dr Furst and Dr Nielssen showed that he acted under a defect of reason caused by an underlying disease of the mind, described as schizophrenia or chronic psychotic illness. Any drug use did not merely create a transient drug induced psychosis and did not exclude the defence. The accused was therefore not guilty on Counts 1 and 2 on the grounds of mental illness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone / Verdict After Trial
Outcome
Verdict of not guilty on Counts 1 and 2 on the grounds of mental illness.
Legal Topics
['grievous Bodily Harm With Intent to Murder' 'alternative Count of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'defence of Mental Illness' 'drug Induced Psychosis' 'schizophrenia' 'judge Alone Trial']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health and Forensic Procedure'] ['grievous Bodily Harm With Intent to Murder' 'alternative Count of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'defence of Mental Illness' 'drug Induced Psychosis' 'schizophrenia' 'judge Alone Trial']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial by Judge Alone / Verdict After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused grievous bodily harm to Shannon Stuart with intent to murder him on Count 1.' 'If necessary, whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted grievous bodily harm on Shannon Stuart with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on Count 2.' 'Whether the accused established on the balance of probabilities the defence of mental illness.' "Whether the accused's psychosis resulted from a disease of the mind or was merely a drug induced psychosis or intoxication." 'Whether, because of a defect of reason from disease of the mind, the accused did not know that what he was doing was morally wrong according to ordinary standards.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offences, the accused established the defence of mental illness. The evidence of his bizarre delusions, hallucinations, contemporaneous statements, persistence of psychotic symptoms beyond any transient drug effect, and the opinions of Dr Furst and Dr Nielssen showed that he acted under a defect of reason caused by an underlying disease of the mind, described as schizophrenia or chronic psychotic illness. Any drug use did not merely create a transient drug induced psychosis and did not exclude the defence. The accused was therefore not guilty on Counts 1 and 2 on the grounds of mental illness.

Court Disposition

Verdict of not guilty on Counts 1 and 2 on the grounds of mental illness.

Orders

  • ['In respect of each count, verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness.' 'Pursuant to s 39 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 the accused is detained in his current correctional facility or such other facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine is appropriate until released by...