R v MM [2024] NSWSC 1066

R v MM [2024] NSWSC 1066

Both expert psychiatrists found that the accused suffered from a severe manic psychosis (bipolar I disorder with psychotic features) not attributable solely to substance use, and this impairment deprived her of the capacity to know that the act was wrong as required by s 28(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the statutory defence was made out and a special verdict returned that she is not criminally responsible for the act of murder.

Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: MM
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Special Hearing on Defence of Mental Health Impairment
Outcome
Special verdict of act proven but the accused is not criminally responsible returned.
Legal Topics
Murder, Defence of Mental Impairment, Cognitive Impairment, Special Verdict, Mental Health Review, Child Offenders
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Murder Defence of Mental Impairment Cognitive Impairment Special Verdict Mental Health Review Child Offenders

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

MM

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Special Hearing on Defence of Mental Health Impairment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is not criminally responsible for murder by reason of mental health impairment under s 28(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the accused's impairment was not solely attributable to ingestion of substances or substance use disorder
  3. 3 Whether a special verdict should be returned of act proven but not criminally responsible

Ratio Decidendi

Both expert psychiatrists found that the accused suffered from a severe manic psychosis (bipolar I disorder with psychotic features) not attributable solely to substance use, and this impairment deprived her of the capacity to know that the act was wrong as required by s 28(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the statutory defence was made out and a special verdict returned that she is not criminally responsible for the act of murder.

Court Disposition

Special verdict of act proven but the accused is not criminally responsible returned.

Orders

  • The young person MM is to be detained at the Forensic Hospital Austinmer Adolescent Unit, or such other place as determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
  • The young person MM is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.