R v DB [2021] NSWDC 213

R v DB [2021] NSWDC 213

The acts alleged against the accused were involuntary and performed while he was asleep due to sexsomnia. The Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the acts were voluntary, and did not establish on the balance of probabilities that sexsomnia constitutes a mental health impairment under the statutory definition. The accused was therefore not criminally responsible for the alleged acts, and must be acquitted of all counts, as neither the actus reus nor the mens rea of the offences were established.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Accused: DB
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judge Alone Trial – Verdict
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Indecent Assault, Automatism, Mental Health Impairment, Voluntariness, Criminal Responsibility, Sexsomnia
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Indecent Assault Automatism Mental Health Impairment Voluntariness Criminal Responsibility Sexsomnia

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

DB

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judge Alone Trial – Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the acts alleged against the accused were voluntary
  2. 2 Whether the accused had a mental health impairment under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020
  3. 3 Whether the statutory elements for sexual offences against a child under the Crimes Act 1900 were met

Ratio Decidendi

The acts alleged against the accused were involuntary and performed while he was asleep due to sexsomnia. The Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the acts were voluntary, and did not establish on the balance of probabilities that sexsomnia constitutes a mental health impairment under the statutory definition. The accused was therefore not criminally responsible for the alleged acts, and must be acquitted of all counts, as neither the actus reus nor the mens rea of the offences were established.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of counts 1 and 2 and the alternative statutory counts; accused acquitted of count 3.