R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345

R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Woodham committed the acts that killed Ms Brameld. On the agreed psychiatric evidence of Dr Martin and Dr Eagle, Mr Woodham suffered from schizophrenia, a mental health impairment within s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, at the time of the acts. The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this impairment had the effect that he did not know the acts were wrong because he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the acts, as perceived by reasonable people, were wrong. The requirements of s 31 were met because the Crown and the accused...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal; Murder Charge With Defence of Mental Health Impairment / Special Hearing Under S 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 After the Accused Was Found Unfit to Be Tried
Outcome
Verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'defence of Mental Health Impairment' 'special Verdict of Act Proven But Not Criminally Responsible' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'forensic Patient Detention']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions'] ['murder' 'defence of Mental Health Impairment' 'special Verdict of Act Proven But Not Criminally Responsible' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'forensic Patient Detention']

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

Common Law Criminal; Murder Charge With Defence of Mental Health Impairment / Special Hearing Under S 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 After the Accused Was Found Unfit to Be Tried

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Louis Woodham committed the acts that killed Denise Brameld.' 'Whether Louis Woodham had a mental health impairment within s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 at the time of the acts.' 'Whether the mental health impairment had the effect that Louis Woodham did not know that the acts were wrong within s 28(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.' 'Whether a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible should be entered under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.' 'Whether Louis Woodham had a cognitive impairment satisfying s 5 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Woodham committed the acts that killed Ms Brameld. On the agreed psychiatric evidence of Dr Martin and Dr Eagle, Mr Woodham suffered from schizophrenia, a mental health impairment within s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, at the time of the acts. The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this impairment had the effect that he did not know the acts were wrong because he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the acts, as perceived by reasonable people, were wrong. The requirements of s 31 were met because the Crown and the accused...

Court Disposition

Verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.

Orders

  • ['A special verdict be entered pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, that the act is proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment.' 'Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic...