R v Patterson (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 458

R v Patterson (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 458

All three psychiatrists agreed that the accused had a qualifying impairment at the time of the acts and that it was not caused solely by the temporary effect of ingesting a substance or by a substance use disorder. The Crown could not point to evidence that drug use or substance use disorder was the sole cause, and the statutory test was not merely a "but for" test. As the expert evidence on the determinative issue was all one way and no other evidence rationally supported rejection of it, the only rational application of the evidence to the law was the verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial for Murder Involving Defence of Mental Health Impairment / Procedural Ruling Before Summing Up on the Direction to Be Given to the Jury
Outcome
The jury is to be directed that the only rational application of the evidence to the relevant law is that the appropriate verdict is act proven but not criminally responsible.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'mental Health Impairment' 'special Verdict of Act Proven But Not Criminally Responsible' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'substance Induced Psychosis']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions'] ['murder' 'mental Health Impairment' 'special Verdict of Act Proven But Not Criminally Responsible' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'substance Induced Psychosis']

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 Jury Trial for Murder Involving Defence of Mental Health Impairment / Procedural Ruling Before Summing Up on the Direction to Be Given to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused was suffering from a mental health impairment within s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) at the time of the act causing death.' 'Whether the Crown could satisfy the jury on the balance of probabilities that the impairment was caused solely by the temporary effect of ingesting a substance or by a substance use disorder.' 'Whether, in light of unanimous expert evidence that the impairment was not caused solely by substance ingestion or substance use disorder, the jury could rationally reject the special verdict and return a verdict of guilty.' 'What direction should be given to the jury about expert evidence and the only rational application of the evidence to the relevant law.']

Ratio Decidendi

All three psychiatrists agreed that the accused had a qualifying impairment at the time of the acts and that it was not caused solely by the temporary effect of ingesting a substance or by a substance use disorder. The Crown could not point to evidence that drug use or substance use disorder was the sole cause, and the statutory test was not merely a "but for" test. As the expert evidence on the determinative issue was all one way and no other evidence rationally supported rejection of it, the only rational application of the evidence to the law was the verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Court Disposition

The jury is to be directed that the only rational application of the evidence to the relevant law is that the appropriate verdict is act proven but not criminally responsible.

Orders

  • ['The jury is to be directed in clear terms that although the ultimate question is for the jury and it is not bound by medical witnesses, it must act on the evidence, and if there is nothing before it throwing doubt on the medical evidence it should accept it.' 'The jury is to be directed that the only rational...