R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292

R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292

On the uncontested evidence, and supported by unanimous expert psychiatric opinion, the accused had a mental health impairment at the relevant time that meant he did not know that his act was wrong (was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act was wrong as perceived by reasonable people); therefore, the act of killing the deceased was proven but the accused is not criminally responsible for it under s.28 and s.31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judge Alone Trial Verdict
Outcome
Act proven but accused not criminally responsible
Legal Topics
['murder' 'mental Health Impairment' 'defence of Mental Impairment' 'section 28 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020' 'special Verdict']
['criminal Law'] ['murder' 'mental Health Impairment' 'defence of Mental Impairment' 'section 28 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020' 'special Verdict']

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 / Judge Alone Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused, Justin Karl Siemek, is criminally responsible for the murder of Vincent Evans given the defence of mental health impairment under s.28 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.' 'Whether the accused met the criteria for mental health impairment at the time of the offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the uncontested evidence, and supported by unanimous expert psychiatric opinion, the accused had a mental health impairment at the relevant time that meant he did not know that his act was wrong (was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act was wrong as perceived by reasonable people); therefore, the act of killing the deceased was proven but the accused is not criminally responsible for it under s.28 and s.31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020.

Court Disposition

Act proven but accused not criminally responsible

Orders

  • ['Verdict entered: "Act proven but not criminally responsible" on the indictment for the charge of murder.']